Template talk:Infobox rugby biography/Archive 1

Jake Hill
Date of birth	Error: Invalid birth date for calculating age
Height	5 ft 8 in (173 cm)
Weight	9 st 10 lb (62 kg; 136 lb)

John Drip
Date of birth	Error: Invalid birth date for calculating age
Height	8 ft (244 cm)
Weight	100 lb (45 kg; 7 st 2 lb)

Joe Blow
Date of birth	Error: Need valid birth date: year, month, day
Height	123 cm (4 ft 0 in)
Weight	200 kg (441 lb; 31 st 7 lb)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per reasonable and unopposed request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Rugger → Template:Infobox Rugby biography — Consistency with {{Infobox Football biography}} - that format is both more professional and more descriptive of what use the template is to be utilised. robwingfield ^«T•C» 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support The current one is not user friendly, or hard to read. The cricket infobox has moved itself forwards eg. to do the job it is suppose to do. Make the reader aware of the essential information; age, pos, club, height, weight, etc. The current rugby union one is awkward at best. Recommend a hybrid one similar to that employed by the rugby league infobox. eg Chris Melling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Londo06 (talk • contribs).

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fix template please

This template needs a code update so that it recognizes when the update fields are empty and doesn't display them at all. Retired and deceased players do not need these fields at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Microformat and DoB

I have updated the template to emit an hCard microformat. hCard's optional date-of-birth parameter will only be included in the microformat if {{Birth date}} or {{Birth date and age}} are used in the infobox; but the current configuration prohibits this, because it wraps the field's contents in square brackets. Any suggestions? Andy Mabbett 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions on using this template

I tried using {{Birth date and age}} for Maurice Brownlie, but it reported his age as 110 (he died in 1957) - what is the correct procedure for someone no longer alive?

Secondly, for earlier players the template needs to distinguish between appearances for the National team and test matches, as tours were predominantly games against provincial sides until around 1980 (those games have now all but disappeared). Again, taking Maurice Brownlie as an example, he played 61 games for the All Blacks, but only 8 were tests. There also doesn't seem to be any support for number of games as captain. Dramatic 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the person is no longer alive, you should use the {{birth date}} template in the dateofbirth parameter, and then use {{death date and age}} in the dateofdeath parameter. Secondly, I think the infobox only takes Test matches into account, so in Brownlie's case you should put 8 as the number of his national team appearances. As for the number of games as captain, I don't believe that's relevant to an infobox, and would be more suited to the main body of the text. - PeeJay 09:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Move

I would support the move suggested above.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur

players who have played in the amateur era have their clubs listed in that space, and today the amateur section is often filled with players youth clubs. Any thoughts?Alexsanderson83 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, both are, by definition, amateur. Do you think that we should inclde youth clubs into the document and remove amateur, replacing with clubs. I could change the setup to rename the amateur section Clubs, if no other parameters delineating club sides are used. How would that sound. --Bob (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have both amateur clubs for when a player plays at a lower level, goes on loan to get some game time, makes a meteoric rise or fall alongside youth clubs. I think both would be an addition to the infobox. This is also a problem in the other infobox and also the rugby league one it is derived from.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Clubs

I believe this may have been brought up earlier but I sound it out anyway. Which way are clubs meant to be listed; chronologically or in reverse order. I notice a fair few are listed backwards, ie current club, previous, earlier club, even earlier club, etc. Read through and there is nothing detailed to which way they are meant to be written. The predominant style for this and other infoboxes is for the timeline to flow chronologically down the infobox. eg 2001-2002, 2002-2005, 2005-06, etc. It's just it may cause confusion when a player has no dates next to the clubs. Londo06 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules for this. I generally list teams chronologically earliest to latest, but if someone did it differently I would have no problem with it. - Shudde ^talk 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Current club

An issue that I have raised here on the discussion page seems relevant. When a player agrees to a move, which will become more frequent towards the conclusion of the current season, it may become confusing which club they are playing for.Londo06 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so only note it when it has gone through and the player has been unveiled. Also, current club is difficult for rugby union, as southern hemisphere players can be registered for two teams at the same time - provincial and super. However, the case also arises when the player does not play for a club, only a franchise (super team). --Bob (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Easier for league as their seasons take place in one calendar year, play concurrent seasons in Northern and Southern hemispheres and sign contracts that are confirmed by governing bodies, leagues and clubs. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile as the Super 14 club players are not that well fleshed out, and not really that many regional players out there. I know there would be issues; are they being called up to S14 or being sent down to provincial level. Reckon it would be worthwile having the current club on this infobox. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They actually play in both... For instance, the bulk of the Blues (Super 14) actually play for Auckland in the Air New Zealand Cup and many are still contracted down to a lower level club. For example: Troy Flavell. So current club?? Do we put down the lowest level club that they are contracted to? For George Gregan that would have been Randwick DRUFC for most of his career... And then we have the Irish, with their provinces... --Bob (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think it would help to show what club a player is at when there are no years on the infobox, or when clubs are side-by-side instead of below. Also all the other boxes show a players earliest clubs first and then follow below with later clubs. Alot of rugby infobox ones flow upwards. I would add in the current club section to help improve the clarity of this infobox.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Placing ????-present in the years parameter would remove any ambiguity... --Bob (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a current club addition just below the players position and locking that section off with the blue band would take the best element of the rival infobox and in my eyes essentially end the need for a new infobox to run alongside this one or supercede it. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What would we put for Current Club in the case of Troy Flavell?? Or David McCall (Scotland U20 who plays for Heriot's and Edinburgh) or Cameron Ferguson (Edinburgh Rugby & Dundee HSFP)?? These players play for more than one team during a season, switching back and forth between them, which one is current? I have gathered from your repetitious stating that a current club heading is what you are looking for, but you have failed to address the concerns I, and possibly others have with such a box. Can you please address what one places in current club for someone like David McCall ?? Also, why is a current club box required if the time period is stated in the club section? Is it not repetitious?? --Bob (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether a player such as Brad Thorn is signed to a provincial side and available to the Crusaders franchise in the Super 14 is a worthy one. I would venture that players from provincial, regional, lower grade would suffer with notability issues and that it is an area that is worthy of investigating as this infobox has taken massive strides over a short period. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The parameters ru_currentposition = and ru_currentteam = have been added. This could be expanded to the rl parameters if it works ok. Look at Nick Mallett or Brad Thorn for usage. --Bob (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox has gone through a number of changes of the recent days, and looks better for it. Seems like this infobox is incorporating the best elements of the other one. Why would Brian BOD be listed as a University College Dublin player, surely for notability reasons and for the casual reader he a Leinster play who is registered at University College Dublin RFC. This is explained in the article, but I would say he is a Leinster player first and a University College Dublin second. I would say that the current team section should illustrate which franchise a player is with, not which local club he pledges allegiance to. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think current club should exist. The current club is just not going to do. Firstly they don't necessarily play for a club (Bob has mentioned this above), and secondly they can play for multiple teams in one season (Bob has mentioned this as well). As long as the infobox has the correct information, we shouldn't worry about giving a detailed description of the players' season. Many players play for their amateur clubs when coming back from injury, or when they have lost form, so current team can change from week to week. It's not worth the hassle of having to specify which they are playing for at a particular time. Troy Flavell is a good example. It says 2006–present for both Auckland and the Blues. This might seem counter intuitive, yet it is correct, and that's that. - Shudde ^talk 07:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the new navboxes help clear up any issues with Irish and Southern hemisphere players. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Years

Added line to fix alignment issues as an option to fix the issue for clarity.Londo 06 13:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to tighten up the language or offer up an alternative, not just remove the text.Londo 06 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

0000, or four question marks ???? remains an option.Londo 06 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Made a further attempt to appease an editor, but it may well be to the detriment of the article as I have now removed an example of how to fix the problem.Londo 06 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

children field

The children field doesn't display (see Frank Oliver). Would somebody be able to fix this? Tomraider (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Londo06 for changing the article. I was meaning that the children field is in the template documentation but does not appear in the Infobox. Sorry for not being clearer. Tomraider (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Template for International Career

While this template has extensive capability for documenting lower levels of particiaption, e.g. amateur and professional clubs, it is sadly lacking at international levels. It is necessary to distinguish between Test and other (usually tour) games for a player's national team - for example, there are plenty of All Blacks who have never played a test but had as many as 60 games as an All Black. (This happens much less in modern times due to the demise of long tours, but I have found instances from the 1980s). I am therefore making the following proposal.

1) That the following fields continue to be supported but are deprecated (not to be used in new infoboxes):

ru_nationalyears =
ru_nationalcaps =
ru_nationalpoints =

(ru_nationalteam may as well be retained, it's the best name for it)

2) That the following fields be added:

ru_testyears
ru_testcaps
ru_testpoints
ru_testtries
ru_nationalnontestyears
ru_nationalnontestcaps
ru_nationalnontestpoints
ru_nationalagegroupteams (e.g. U19, U21, Junior)
ru_nationalagegroupyears
ru_nationalagegroupcaps
ru_nationalagegrouppoints
ru_rwccaps (rugby world cup)
ru_rwctournaments
ru_rwcpoints

3) That if possible a template error should occur if any of the above is used together with one of the deprecated fields

4) That a ru_points subtemplate be developed with the format {{rupoints|points=|t=|c=|p=|d=}} where points = total points, t=points from tries, c=points from conversions, p=points from penalty kicks and d=points from drop goals. The reason I have included a test tries field above is that there is quite a focus on this stat (and national records) but the two changes in the value of a try make it unclear how many tries a player has scored from the points count alone.

5) Since figures are often given as "x total caps for country including y tests" it would be good if the template could automatically total caps/points if there are entries for both test and nontest fields. (saves relying on users' ability to add)

6) I still haven't figured out how to cover "special character" teams such as New Zealand Maori or Barbarians

7) I'll do a mocked up display of the points stuff tomorrow.

Please discuss. dramatic (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a provision for youth representative rugby out there within the other template. My real concern would be the confirmation of non-test caps. The All-Blacks are very good at detailing this information, I'm not too sure on the other nations.Londo 06 11:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What "other" template? And if we have 1100 All Blacks whose infoboxes are potentially misleading or wrong, doesn't that alone make it worthwhile? Supplementary question - how do you currently cope with British Lions players in the infobox? (having test points for 2 different teams) - other than most of the Lions players having stub articles with no infobox at present.dramatic (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

the alternate Template:Infobox Rugby Union biography is the one I was referring to. With regards to British Lions players this would belong in the same place as a players full country details, with only the 3 official matches being recognised. Any midweek or warm-up matches are currently addressed within the body of the article. Once again it comes down to confirmation, with only the All Blacks website as a real strong source it seems that only New Zealand players would get the necessary treatment. I have absolutely no problem with the addition, it's just unlikely that records can be properly sourced with other nations for non-test matches and also when a match is confirmed as a non-test match.Londo 06 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the proposal to add parameters for RWC appearances and points. Could someone please explain to me why they are needed? – Pee Jay 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay on that one as well.Londo 06 12:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the RWC fields are a low priority for me - there just seemed to be a big focus on stats during the tournament. dramatic (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Looking at Dan Carter, I find that his birthdate, using this template, is output in U.S. Dating format (i.e. month-day-year). This is inappropriate for this individual, and doubtless inappropriate for most rugby players. Can a solution be found? --Pete (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix that issue en-masse, but I can say that it would be inappropriate for most rugby players.Londo 06 08:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template change

The template change that has been done today is causing British and Irish Lions to wrap and the dates and appearances columns to be wrong if anything are listed after the Lions. noq (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is endemic to the current template design; it was only avoided in the past by hard-coding a width which exceeded the length of the term "British and Irish Lions". It can be fixed on a case-by-case basis by using {{nowrap|British and Irish Lions}} where this is happening. The correct way to fix this in the long run is to have different teams separated by different table rows rather than line breaks; this is in fact essential if the team lists are to be usable by blind or partially sighted readers who have to rely on software speaking the rows out to them. That will need to be addressed by on a project-wide basis, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitational sides

Where do appearances for teams such as the Barbarians fit into the infobox? Should there be an "Invitational" section, or is there some otehr standard?Kwib (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

sounds a good idea to me - but which teams to include? Do the Lions count as invitational? What about Pacific Islanders? noq (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Lions and Pacific Islanders can only be drawn from specific nations and would probably bets fit under the national section. International sides with no specific regional pool are those I had enisaged under the Invitational area. I would not know how to add such a section to this template though.Kwib (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Redundant templates

Why do we have this template, as well as {{Infobox rugby league biography}} and {{Infobox Rugby Union biography}}? Surely one would do? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the main template used by WP:RU. It was created to have a single infobox for both union and league but the league project has since moved on to using a newer template. The {TL|Infobox Rugby Union biography}} template is an older one and should really be replaced with this one. noq (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Height Weight

I am wondering about the usage description stating to use the convert template. The underlying template does not require this as it uses the convinfobox template. The syntax is different for each. I have tried to decipher the code, but am a little bewildered by this issue. The height code works with the syntax "| height = {{height|m=1.8}}", but with the weight field syntax "| weight = {{weight|kg=88}}" does not. To see what happens look at this edit...

James O'Connor old edit

Anyone tell me why?SauliH (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, figured out that there is a collision with Template:Weight which redirects to Template:Unbalanced. Now how to fix it...SauliH (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, by using {{convert}} like the documentation says. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ignore what I asked... I figured it out... duh...SauliH (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I sorry for the confusion. I've got {{convinfobox}} working here. You can use | height_cm = (or do we really want to use metres for height ... as if anyone does), | weight_kg = , | height_ft = , | height_in = , | weight_st = and/or | weight_lb = . See the examples to the right. JIMp_talk·cont 16:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Spouse and children parameters

The template documentation mentions "spouse" and "children" parameters, but they're not included in the template itself. Any objections to adding them? – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Referee parameters

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can a parameter be added to the template for referees. One at the bottom of the rugby union (ru) section, and the other at the bottom of the league (rl) section. Using the coding within the template as it stands:

{{#if:{{{ru_referee|}}}| ! colspan=3 style="background-color: #e0ffff" {{!}} Refereeing career {{!}}- ! Years ! Competition ! Apps {{!}}- {{!}} {{{ru_refereeyears}}} {{!}} {{{ru_refereecomps}}} {{!}} {{{ru_refereeapps}}} {{!}}- }}

{{#if:{{{rl_referee|}}}| ! colspan=3 style="background-color: #e0ffff" {{!}} Refereeing career {{!}}- ! Years ! Competition ! Apps {{!}}- {{!}} {{{rl_refereeyears}}} {{!}} {{{rl_refereecomps}}} {{!}} {{{rl_refereeapps}}} {{!}}- }}

However, if an editor thinks that he or she can clean this template up, then that would also be awesome. Thank you. --Bob247 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to add your required code to Template:Infobox rugby biography/sandbox and then reactivate the request? A good start in cleaning up might be to convert it to use the {{infobox}} meta-template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

code deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Could someone update the documentation? I don't that much about the background mechanics of these templates but it looks like the new fields aren't working (see André Watson). Hack (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it didnt work, which is why I didn't readd the update template, but now that it does, will readd the template. However, I have no idea how to start to clean up the template to align it with {{Infobox sportsperson}}. I have added /sandbox to the Andre Watson article. This can be removed when the template is updated. --Bob247 (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You've changed all the colours ... is this something that has been agreed on, or is it asserted to be uncontroversial? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the colors so that I could see which one I was working on as I was trying out the different sections using the preview section on a number of different articles. The referee parameters now work. Those can be updated. I don't know if the colors are uncontroversial or not. Colors have been changed back, but the rest should be good. Please also include in the update the changes to the sevens parameters, as we need more space for the team names there. --Bob247 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox now deployed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove nickname parameter

This field is a constant target for unsourced derogatory additions. If sourced and notable, they can be added into the body text. For example, when nickname is equally (or more) popular, it is often added into the front line of the lead. This nickname parameter was already removed from tennis and football biography templates. Materialscientist (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. It also adds no context to the nickname. I have had a discussion regarding one that was added because a newspaper referred to the sportsman as superman. AIRcorn (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox has been updated to remove nickname parameter. Just needs to be deployed. --Bob247 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deployed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note: removal of a field like this breaks references which are first defined in this field, and then reused later in the article. See for example my repair at [1]. It may be necessary to have a bot go through all articles using the template and rescue any such refs.-gadfium 19:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Combine club sections

Maybe we should try and implement a change following this discussion. I am not overly familiar with templates, but maybe we should add a ru_seniorteam section and then get a bot (if it is possible) to move all the information in the "Super14", "ru_proclub", "ru_amateurclubs" etc into this section. Once that is complete we could safely remove the other club sections from this template without losing information or making a mess of the articles. I had a play in the sandbox[2]. AIRcorn (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would also suggest updating the styling to that found in {{Infobox sportsperson}}. --Bob247 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that one we could remove Occupation, School, University, Spouse, Children, Relatives, Allblack id and Allblack number. I am all for simplifying this template and all of those are either irrelevant to the article, could be included in the prose or as an external link. AIRcorn (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at Template:Infobox football biography, I think that will work really well as is - only a few very small tweaks to that would be needed to perfect it for rugby. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the fields are different and these would have to be changed in every article that currently has this infobox. AIRcorn (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby union biography already exists too... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Aircorn on this. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was tinkering with the template today and realised that what we are proposing is very close to the {{Infobox rugby league biography}}. Compare Brad Thorn (league infobox) with Sonny Bill Williams (this infobox). Instead of altering this template a simpler solution might be to temporarily change to the league template and then delete this one. The league one could then be renamed "Infobox rugby biography" and the one template could be used by both projects. Having two separate infoboxes covering the same information seems redundant in any case, plus it means information for similar players is presented differently depending on who got their infobox there first. It will require a bit of co-operation, but should be doable. What do you think? AIRcorn (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rugby union statistics question

When using the infobox for northern hemisphere rugby union players, should the infobox statistics include european cup competetions like the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup, or should it only included league appearances, like Template:Infobox football biography? --Kafuffle (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Club caps

Can someone please edit this to change 'clubcaps' to 'clubgames' or something similar? Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I don't think the concept of caps for a club is widely used. --hippo43 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, but what about "Apps"? Caps can have quite a specific meaning, especially for international matches. I'd be happy for a wholesale change from caps -> apps

Rugby players with 7's background points?

A whole lot of Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Australia and NZ players have played in the IRB 7's rugby series since 1998 but there is no option to add the points they have scored (just years, team and competition). can that be added so that we could add the points (usually tries) scored by these players so that it also appears on their main page and isn't hidden?.. I added the option of"| ru_sevensnationalpoints =" to an article but it didn't do anything. I think we should remove the competition section or add another section for tournaments (which is like caps in 15's). so if a player plays this season only in all tournaments, he has 9 tournaments(caps)--Stemoc (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Changes – 2013

There are a few changes I would propose, some were raised here. I do think these should be discussed separately – if there's complete support for one change, that can be still be implemented even if other changes are not agreed upon. Please feel free to share your thoughts on any or all of the changes below, lend support or oppose the changes, or to make any other suggestions that would sufficiently enhance this infobox: TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing need for line breaks in club history

It will make the template easier to maintain and less prone to error. Since these will be new parameters, these changes can be implemented with no disruption to existing pages. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - Misalignment of stats has been a problem for a while now and this solution seems to have worked with the football biography infobox. – Pee Jay 22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Support – As long as this doesn't cause current templates to break I'm happy with this. I've never had a prob with the current system, but can see why people prefer this way of doing it. - Shudde ^talk 11:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Support – Will look bloated for those that have played in more than 5 clubs but making it easier to maintain means more chance of it getting updated regularly...I know most of us have fixed that section a few times when a newbie adds the info to the wrong section..--Stemoc (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how it will look any more bloated than before. Either way, the player will have more than five clubs in their infobox. Some football players have up to 20 clubs in their infoboxes and it looks fine. – Pee Jay 22:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Caps / Apps

As suggested by hippo43 above, change "caps" to "apps" throughout.TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - While I'm sure there are some exceptions, most clubs don't award caps. Let's use the correct term. – Pee Jay 22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Support – As per above, and my comment earlier. As well, international teams generally only award "caps" for Test matches, which means some players have, for example, played for the Lions or All Blacks, and not been capped. "Apps" isn't perfect (for one it's an abbreviation), but it's an improvement. Maybe change this section title; club caps implies you are only proposing this for club sections, but then say "throughout". A little confusing. - Shudde ^talk 11:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Updated. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As per my example, you can see the template can be modified for Provincial and international standard so we can use "Apps" for club competition and "Caps" for International section. I find the term "apps" more appealing for ANY club competition and we should use "caps" for anything that deals with an international competition. I don't think we list "matches" i.e games not recognised as tests so no need to change it into 2 sections...It can actually be mentioned on the players article itself so no need to mess up a template because of that.. The only 2 IRB sanctioned team that should be included in the "representative section" apart from their national team are the B & I Lions and the now defunct Pacific Islanders, everything else can be added to the Club section...--Stemoc (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment - For national teams, this should only list full international games (i.e. caps). Non-test appearances, touring games etc can be covered in the text. Apps isn't great as it isn't clear to a general audience of readers - I would use games if space is an issue. --hippo43 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would we exclude non-Test matches? Prior to between 1884 and 1903 every New Zealand international would be listed with "0" caps?! I think non-Test matches are notable, and so would much prefer to include both, rather than solely Tests. - Shudde ^talk 12:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We would exclude non-test matches because that's what almost all sources do. If you read somewhere that "Richard Loe played 49 times for New Zealand" it almost always means 49 caps, i.e. 49 full internationals. If we stated here that he played 78 matches for New Zealand, it would be seriously misleading. Until I recently amended it, the article on Warren Gatland stated that he had 17 caps for New Zealand, when he actually has none. I don't think non-test matches are notable enough for the infobox, but do think they should be mentioned in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think most sources necessarily do that. Many would instead say "played XX Test matches for New Zealand". The problem is, are we going to have teams listed in the infobox with 0 caps beside them? For example Stuart Hogg (rugby player) played for the Lions, but wasn't capped. The alternative is to list non-Test and Test matches separately. I'm not sure how that would look though. - Shudde ^talk 10:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How many Lions caps does Stuart Hogg have? 0 is correct. Any other number is wrong. I don't think non-Test matches are important enough to be shown in the infobox. --hippo43 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So someone is going to see his the team listed, and zero under caps? It's correct, but I feel sorry for anyone unfamiliar with the term caps – they'd be forgiven for thinking it's an error. I'd say 'any matches for an international team (especially the Lions) is notable, and in fact, more notable than 95% of domestic matches. - Shudde ^talk 11:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Pro clubs / provinces / Super Rugby

Personally, I don't see the point in having separate sections for these. The traditional "provinces" (eg. in Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa) are all operating nowadays as professional clubs anyway. Also, why split out Super Rugby when Heineken Cup rugby isn't split out in the Northern Hemisphere? In order to cater for the amateur era too, I propose we create a section called "Senior teams" ("senior" to avoid the professional v amateur debate, "teams" to avoid the club v province v franchise debate), where we list all his teams in chronological order. National teams can still be displayed separately. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - Good argument, well made. I agree with all of this. Different countries define their top level of rugby union in different ways (i.e. in country A, clubs are the top, whereas in country B, clubs are lower down than provinces/states/regions). Let's just amalgamate the lot and have overlapping time periods for players who represent more than one club/province/state/region at a time. – Pee Jay 22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – The current system doesn't list the same teams multiple times – lets make that clear. A Super rugby team and provincial team are different (in South Africa and New Zealand at least), they're not the same team playing in two different competitions. Thats why Super Rugby is "split out", because it's not the same side playing in a domestic competition, and in an international competition (unlike the Heineken Cup). I think the current system makes clear that a player playing provincially/state/county (so domestic representatively) often plays concurrently (within the same season/year) with a club/super rugby side. The subsections make this a little clearer to readers. I can see removing subsection actually making the team list cumbersome and confusing; mainly for Southern Hemisphere players. - Shudde ^talk 11:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said – or even implied – that the same teams are listed multiple times. I'm just trying to come up with a way to represent northern hemisphere teams and southern hemisphere teams in the same manner, so that there's a level of uniformity across both. I fully agree with your reason as to why Super Rugby is split out, but I don't necessarily think that that is the best way of representing it in a uniform manner. For example, if a player moves from the Waratahs (a team playing in the premier international "club" tournament in the southern hemisphere) to Toulon (a team playing in the premier international "club" tournament in the northern hemisphere), which to all intents and purposes is simply a continuation of his playing career, why should his career suddenly be continued in a different section in the infobox? I do agree that the current layout might make things a clearer for southern hemisphere players, but I think it makes it significantly more confusing for southern hemisphere players that then go and play in the northern hemisphere (and there are a lot of them nowadays). You have to jump between three different sections to try and piece together a player's career. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Also re this, I think there might be another way of presenting this entirely. For example, listing all teams chronologically, but have some sort of indicator or something to show that it's a Super Rugby team, or that the player played in the Heineken Cup. Or something, I'm just thinking out loud here, but any ideas would be welcomed where the teams can be showed in a more chronological order while also hinting at the tier it was played at. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any need for that. There is a danger of trying to fit too much info in the infobox, and I don't think the status of each team is necessary, only the name of the team, the years the player played for them, and their appearances/points stats. – Pee Jay 22:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I was addressing the question you asked: " why split out Super Rugby when Heineken Cup rugby isn't split out in the Northern Hemisphere?" I think we're just replacing one "problem" with another. I'm also not concerned about uniformity between the hemispheres. The rugby in Europe and in NZ is, for example, just structured so completely differently. - Shudde ^talk 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment – Is there a reliable source definition of "senior"? I've struggled to find decent definitions of "test status" and "first class status", so I'm worried this term is even less well defined. So even though I'm opposed to this proposal, if we do start listing teams as "senior" I'd like to know exactly what that means. As well, is there any way this can be done without "breaking" the template? - Shudde ^talk 11:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually think this will be obvious if you look at a player's career. When he reaches a point where he just "drops off the map", he's probably not at a senior team anymore. But I'm all for thrashing out a definitive list if you want. The clubs playing in these leagues should be a good starting point. I would include teams playing in top-level national competitions in countries with amateur leagues too (e.g. the SuperLiga (rugby), etc). And, yes, when properly designed, this can be done without breaking the template. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing we need to avoid. A few wikipedians sitting around in a circle and deciding what is "senior" rugby is original research. I haven't had a good look yet, but I'll see if I can find whether any of the major national unions have a definition. Otherwise, we should consider using a different term. My concern is this term was just lifted from another template, and hasn't been thought through. - Shudde ^talk 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment You can't really compare Super Rugby to Heineken Cup. Heineken Cup and the involves teams from successful top level clubs in Europe that play in another Competition apart from the heineken CUP whereas Super Rugby is a club competition on its own. I do agree we may need to remove the "Super Rugby " section because it follows the same laws as all the other club competition. They can be all added to one section, we could probably call it "Professional" instead of "Senior" and the other section as "Provincial" for those team that have another lower (than a tier 1 competition) competition like the ITM Cup for NZ and the Currie Cup for South Africa. Before we do this, we should define the level of competition.

- NZ (Super Rugby/ITM Cup)
- Aus (Super Rugby/ARC (Shute?))
- South Africa (Super Rugby/Currie Cup)

Their main competition is Super Rugby

- Eng (Aviva/RFU Championship)
- Scots (Pro12/Scottish League Championship/Scottish Cup)
- Ireland (Pro12/AIB League)
- Wales (Pro12)/?)
- France (Top14/ProD2)
- Italy (Pro 12/NCE)

There is also the LV Cup played by teams from Wales and England and The British and Irish Cup played by teams from UK and Ireland.

Their main competition is divided into 2 divisions, the Heineken Cup and the European Challenge Cup
The one one the left side is their main (TOP) professional competition and the one on the right is their provincial or 2nd competition

- Argentina (Nacional de Clubes/Campeonato Argentino)

That's for Tier 1 and just like Super Rugby is the DEFINING competition for the top 3 ranked southern hemisphere teams, the Heineken Cup is the defining competition for the Top 6 Northern Hemisphere team but they also have a 2nd competition, a lower competition known as European Challenge Cup....Since European players can play in more than one competition , it would be silly to add sections for each competition in their infobox and since we can't use flags no more to show which country is the competition from, it may get cluttered into one, especially for players who have played in more than 4-5 TOP competitions from around the world..Lets regard the top or MAIN competition as "Professional" and the other as "Provincial"?...it may work well with the SANZAR teams but maybe a problem with teams who play in both the 1st and 2nd competition from time to time via promotion/relegation such as a ProD2/top14 team...--Stemoc (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is original research. See my reply to TheMightyPeanut above. Also, you should really reconsider this wall-of-text approach to comments. - Shudde ^talk 23:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment – I'm in favour of one section for club/provincial teams for current players. There is a lot of variety across all countries as to how these teams are structured - New Zealand is different from England, but so is Ireland, so is Wales etc - but they are basically all professional club teams now. We don't need to define here which teams are senior or pro or whatever - which teams to include will depend on the subject of the article, and will depend on what secondary sources cover.

The problem for me is with older players. The distinction between clubs and provinces isn't really relevant now, but it was when, say, John Kirwan was playing. Playing for Marist and playing for Auckland really were two very different levels and probably shouldn't be listed together. I'm not sure what the best solution to that is. --hippo43 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Kirwan example is appropriate. The thing is, he couldn't play for two teams at the same level simultaneously – so he wouldn't play for two provinces in one season, or two clubs in one season, so the sectioning works very well. I think at the moment, the problem most people seem to have is with Southern Hemisphere players that move and play club rugby in Europe – but at the moment, that is only a minority of the biographies we have listed, and will probably remain that way for a very long time. There may be a solution, but I don't think removing sections altogether is it. – Shudde ^talk 10:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment – Looking at the infobox for John Kirwan, the way the info is presented is dreadful. From 'Amateur clubs' down to 'Coaching career' there are just 5 lines of data, and 11 lines of explanation - headings and footnotes. For Dan Carter, there are only 3 lines of information necessary, but there are 8 more lines of explanation. It's hideous, and there needs to be a better way. I'm inclined to agree with Peanut that a chronological list makes more sense. Remembering that we are writing for a general audience of readers, and that the article is a biography of a person, not a stats database, it makes far more sense for me to list these chronologically. In the case of Kirwan, for example, the infobox doesn't offer any narrative of his life. If it listed his teams chronologically then it would make sense that he played in NZ/Italy, then played rugby league for a bit, then went to Japan. Currently it's really difficult to make sense of the timeline. I agree with PeeJay that we don't need to add more explanation of what level each team plays at - readers can click through if they don't know. --hippo43 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just be aware that the teams listed in the Kirwan infobox are almost certainly not comprehensive. I'd be shocked if he didn't play first-class rugby for more sides, especially colts, age-group, North Island, and All Blacks Trial teams. I was looking at Wayne Shelford's book recently, and he played first-class rugby for eleven teams! Only one of those sides was outside NZ as well (Wasps). He played at a similar time to Kirwan. I, for one, would like to see professional and amateur clubs combined; they're both clubs, and sometimes the distinction isn't clear. - Shudde ^talk 12:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and if these details can be sourced they could be included under representative teams. (FWIW, Shelford played for Northampton and Roma besides Wasps, after his book was published.) I agree also that amateur & pro clubs should be merged, irrespective of what we decide on merging clubs & provinces. Currently we have 'Amateur' and 'Pro/senior' clubs, which makes no sense as amateur clubs can also be senior clubs. --hippo43 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The book I was reading was a later one (published > 2005), but not sure the Northampton and Roma stuff was classified as first-class, which would explain why it wasn't listed. I agree it makes no sense, a club is club - whether professional, amateur, "senior" etc. - Shudde ^talk 10:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'classified as first class', and this just illustrates the problem with trying to classify clubs at all. Northampton were in the English first division when Shelford was there (the same level as Wasps). Roma were in the top division in Italy. The infobox must reflect the player's career - if a player went off to play for a team in Italy/Japan/wherever it is of interest, even if the team was crap. --hippo43 (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah was not meaning to imply that only first class should be included in the infobox, just that this book only listed first class teams. Sorry for the confusion! I agree we should avoid classifying teams in this way within the infobox. - Shudde ^talk 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How about the most simple distinction of them all? If a player plays first-team rugby with a club, no matter the level, it goes in the "senior career" portion; anything before that counts as their "youth career". – Pee Jay 20:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --hippo43 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, I honestly think it should be obvious if you look at the player's career. For example, recently Bismarck du Plessis returned from injury. To get his fitness levels up, he played club rugby for three separate teams on three consecutive weekends (club rugby in South Africa is below international, Super Rugby, Currie Cup and Vodacom Cup level – which are all deemed first class games – so basically it's amateur teams playing in regional leagues). So, he did play first team rugby with a club, but it won't make sense to include that at all, because it's definitely not a relevant part of his career. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I think we need to establish whether a player has a formal relationship with the club. I hesitate to say "is contracted to", because that almost implies professionalism when we know that not all senior teams are professional, but that's the sort of thing I'm alluding to. – Pee Jay 12:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also not quite (sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I'm pretty sure we have the same teams in mind that should be listed) – again, in South Africa, there's Varsity Cup rugby, played between the major universities. These are not first class games, since it's at club level. However, the standard is generally accepted to be higher than Vodacom Cup rugby, which is on at the same time and is first class. The Varsity Cup gets more television coverage, it's reported more in the media, etc., than the Vodacom Cup. This year, for example, the Blue Bulls sent their players en masse to go play for the University of Pretoria in the Varsity Cup competition. So a lot of their younger players had a formal relationship with (or was contracted to) UP, playing for them for the entire Varsity Cup season, yet I'm not entirely sure that should be listed as part of their senior career ... or should it? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess we'll just have to go by what the reliable sources say. Jeez, it's never this difficult to sort out which football clubs to include. – Pee Jay 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just include all teams listed in reliable sources. Deciding whether a team warrants inclusion in the infobox shouldn't be left to us, but should simply reflect what is listed in sources. As for having youth and senior teams, I don't think the distinction is always clear, and again seems like an artificial distinction we are trying to create. - Shudde ^talk 10:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Score breakdown

Again, these fields will be new, so it can be developed to not have an impact on existing pages. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a test look here (User:Stemoc/test2) as to how it may look if we change a few things including adding a new column for Penalties (ignore the smallish blue columns, it can be fixed via increasing colspan size in their "protected" templates) and obviously using the correct term of Drop goal instead of field goal....apart from a little bit of spacing problem which can be fixed via colspan, it looks good....--Stemoc (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually think it's looks overly cluttered. And if you assume that a team have three kickers, it means 12 out of 15 (or 80%) players would always have zeroes in three of those columns. Is it really worth it? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look cluttered because the player has scored many points and this is only limited to 5% of all the "rugger" articles on wikipedia, the rest would generally only have total tries and because others are not important. The most important for an average players is caps and total tries scored and thats all that would need to be added and you can add dash (-) for the other boxes instead of 0...I have also incorporated Caps (for internationals) and Apps (for clubs) in my example :)--Stemoc (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - I do suggest, however, that if a player has not scored any tries/conversions/penalties/drop goals/kicks from mark (let's not forget kicks from mark), we should leave the field blank or use a dash rather than adding a zero. Adding a zero makes it look (at first glance) like there is a stat there when there actually isn't. – Pee Jay 22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Although we shouldn't just pan ideas because they might take a bit of work to implement, Shudde has convinced me that this isn't worth the effort. However, I don't think that we should just drop the idea of breaking down players' points stats. How about adding season-by-season stats to players' articles (where the sources allow), as per what we have on high-profile football articles (see Ryan Giggs, etc.)? That would allow the stats to be presented to readers who might be seeking them, while keeping the infobox uncluttered. – Pee Jay 19:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please no; not football, Football is the reason why that template is in a mess in the first palce, we are using their format of (caps) and (goals) scored but there is lot more to rugby then goals, we have tries, penalties (goals on mark), drop goals and conversions as well. Giggs is a poor comparison. The template was already created taking football in mind (just like everything else) and now we can't have one which is exclusively for RUGBY only? its harder to add those season-by-season stats than it is to update their template, you can expect most article to never get updated cause no one will be able to do it. The so-called wikignomes whom Shudde hates are the ones that keep our rugby articles up-to-date..well next time i make a rugby article, i'd be sure to use a league template even if the player is exclusively a rugby union one cause i care for the little things. I'd want their articles to be precise and FULLY FACTUAL and the only way that is possible is to break down their scoring stats, it may be ok to add 100 caps and 40 goals for a soccer player's page, but its not ok to do the same for a rugby player..adding stats directly to their pages would create a lot more work which shudde is against.....I'm not sure what you all mean by Cluttering but I'd make a another one for those that are not the team's point scorers...--Stemoc (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Obviously the rugby table wouldn't just include appearances and "goals", we would have columns for appearances, tries, conversions, penalties, drop goals and (where appropriate and sourceable) goals from mark. It's really not a hard thing to do. In fact, I may just add an example of what I'm proposing to an article right now. – Pee Jay 10:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I added one to Waisale Serevi years ago. That was just for international points, but it's an example. Stemoc has his opinion on this, and it isn't going to change. So I wouldn't spend too much time trying to justify your position. - Shudde ^talk 10:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nevertheless, I've added a sample table to Rhys Priestland's article as I knew I could source stats for his Scarlets appearances. What do you think? – Pee Jay 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

yes, tough luck trying to get that one updated, my idea may look cluttered even though its not (the official template just needs to increase colspan to 9) but its far easier to update and btw, that looks more "cluttered" than mine.....--Stemoc (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. There are many ways to do it of course, but I think that looks great. I think having the table spanning the entire screen looks terrible (like some tables in 2013 British and Irish Lions tour of Australia), but the Priestland one looks good. - Shudde ^talk 11:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose per MightyPeanut. I think it clutters the infobox as well; we don't need every piece of statistical information included in an infobox. Appearances and points is important, and even that is much less important than the teams and playing years. ~~Tries I could maybe live with,~~ but not the rest of it. For one, only having tries would remove the need for an abbreviation; although that could imply that tries are more important than other forms of scoring, so I'm really not convinced. - Shudde ^talk 11:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Updated to strong oppose. Not worth the effort. Adding lots of work; very little value compared to including this information in the lead etc. No need for tries to be included. - Shudde ^talk 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment – PeeJay is right about a goal from the mark, they're historically important, and if we're going to include all forms of scoring, it must be included. Maybe change the test infobox so people can see what this would look like. The other question is "minors" (or behinds), I think they may have counted for points in some countries at one point, but I'm not sure. Does anyone have any information on this? - Shudde ^talk 11:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't noticed but there is more chance of player scoring tries than drop goals, kicking conversions and penalties, and yet our current format ignores that form of scoring, as i have said above, of the 5400 odd articles this change might affect, only about 200 or so would have a slightly "bloated" points section like the Dan Carter example above whereas it will look great for the rest. I agree, we should focus more on the articles itself but seriously, there are still many articles laying barren that haven't been touched in a very long time and when it does get touched people don't necessary update it with more info, but they do update it with stats including their point scoring and appearances (caps). I refused to update articles before because I got tired of adding numbers which didn't make sense to an average reader. In regards to Goal from mark, I think that can be incorporated into the DG section so instead of using "ru_drop" template option, they can use "ru_goal", though right now i'm not sure how to add that feature but i know it can be done by a more experience template editor.--Stemoc (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be replying to both my comment and oppose at once. Just because wiki-gnomes like updating a couple of stats is no good reason to add every mode of scoring to an infobox. If you ask me, adding another piece of information to 5000 infoboxes is just adding a lot of work – this makes me even less happy about this proposal. There is no way combining drop-goals and goals from a mark is a good idea; they're different modes of scoring like penalities, conversions etc. You've crystallised in my mind exactly why I'm opposed to this. I'm updating my above comment. - Shudde ^talk 23:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So you oppose something which is probably the FIRST thing an average visitor/user looks at when they come to a rugby player's page? Just yesterday Dan Carter became the first person to reach 1500 points in Super Rugby and i bet 1000's would flock to his wikipedia article to find out the breakdown of his points in the next 3 days because no other sites keeps this stat apart from an unreliable french site (itsrguby) but they will find NOTHING but 120 caps and 1503 points. His page has been viewed over 23000 times the last 30 days and that is why i used him as my "guinea pig" for this idea. You may not like the idea, I do not understand why but I feel its a GOOD if not a brilliant idea. It was something lacking in rugby player articles for a very long time..I have no intentions of changing your mind, I tried to see it from both sides but unfortunately I just can't fathom it from yours....I tried adding pictures to rugby player articles from many sources, I tried updating them but there was always one thing missing and unfortunately we are not on the same boat on this...In regards to 'goals on mark', an you tell me the exact number of article that would be affected by this cause if thats the main basis for your opposition, then its a pretty poor reason IMO....I never said to combine it, but use "ru_goal" as an option when adding the infobox to the player so it appears under "G" in their article and not as a "P" ..It can be done, i haven't done anything like this in 5 years so not sure how to.. I know a lot of people out there would LOVE to know the breakdown of points for every player and just writing a random number next to their caps with no explanation isn't the way to do it...--Stemoc (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You seriously need to chill out. This is bordering on a rant. Add the information to the lead of Dan Carter if you're so concerned – that's something you can do right now! And guess what, those people will see that information right at the top of the article. You better hurry up though, because thousands of people are missing out! You're suggestion re goals from a mark (not 'on the mark') is ridiculous; the number of articles that will be effected is not important. I'm pretty much done with this conversation – you're starting to waste my time. - Shudde ^talk 04:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Rant? haha, not really.. DC is my guinea pig, I used him cause he is one of the most recognisable rugby players in the world, McCaw only score tries so was a poor choice.....I have no intentions of updating his article ONLY, when i can find a way to get over 5000 rugby related articles fixed..I'm thinking of the future here, when Carter retires in 2016, his article will still have 1xx caps and possibly 2000 points and thats it..there will no longer be a need to update his article as in his stats but his article will always looks half finished unless someone crates a page of All the points Dan Crater has scored for NZ, Canterbury and The Crusaders like we currently have for international tries for some players.... now thats silly....I'm not ranting, i'm trying to get you to see why thats important...HALF if not 3/4 of all rugby player articles on wikipedia are of Stub status with practically no information whatsoever except for 3 or 4 lines describing his age, place of birth and his position and where he is lying his trade....I don't see anyone improving those articles but if we can atleast update their stats, we would have ONE reliable information on their pages...I know you like getting articles to GA and FA status, I have helped you do that a few times as well but whats the use of doing that when the MAJORITY of articles that are on wikipedia practically have no information...I add as much information as i can when i create an article but at the end of the day i realise i cannot write stuff like "Player X scored 2 tries in his first test, 3 in his next, and a conversion and 2 penalties as well taking his tally to 33" in his article as it would seem like i'm trying to breakdown all his points scored and add it to his article which i believe is a poor method of writing articles. Best if stats like that had its own section..Your opinions have always mattered to me thats why i can't understand why you of all people would not agree to this idea..This change could also be helpful to future posters on wikipedia, a few decades ago there were usually just one goal kicker in a team, nowadays a team has more than 3 capable kickers and its not necessarily the flyhalf so it means more people will be scoring points as in terms of penalties, conversions than ever before..if we take the current lions tour, Australia have used 3 goalkickers in their first 2 tests, the lions have used 4..so you may assume its not important because that would only add a section for tries but you really need to think ahead...Rugby league is a minor sport outside of Australia and yet they seem to keep better stats than any other sport on wikipedia....what's the use of making article on players on wikipedia if we have no INTENTION of keeping their stats?..tbf, i'm not wasting your time, its the other way around....--Stemoc (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose Too cluttered, not important enough. --hippo43 (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
For an average player that generally just scores tries, doesn't look cluttered now does it? ...--Stemoc (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. With all those dashes and zeroes, it looks horrible, and adds nothing useful. An infobox should be a short summary of key information on someone. How many drop goals Dan Carter scored for Perpignan might be of interest to someone, but it's not important enough to go in here. --hippo43 (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – I agree with points raised above, I would prefer a detail breakdown to be added as a table in the main body of the article. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Apps and points for sevens / amateur / youth teams, etc

As an extension to the suggestion by Stemoc above, can appearances and points be added to all teams that the player might have player for, not just senior teams? If the score breakdown above is accepted, then those additional fields should also all be available. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't believe appearances/stats should be recorded for clubs' youth/reserve teams, but youth international stats certainly should. I'd even record sevens stats if there are sufficient sources, albeit only for international sevens. – Pee Jay 22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree regarding youth stats unless its representative youth as in the Junior World Championship or the U21 championship they used to have a few years back, nothing else warrants inclusion. Regarding sevens, impossible to add "caps" i.e overall total per games played but can add tournaments as mentioned above making it one tournament=one cap and tournament numbers are usually mentioned by commentators during games and sadly, IRB doesn't really keep stats for all players only those with over 100 or so tries ..--Stemoc (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Stemoc there, it seems pretty difficult to find info for exact number of games in sevens, the number of tournaments is easier to find and would also be very useful information to provide. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Support – I really see no problem with having appearances and points for all teams; see no reason why we should differentiate on this front. Don't have to include it for every article (can be decided on a case by case basis), but would be great to have the option. - Shudde ^talk 11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand number

Should be changed to All Black number, because that's what it is. Without reopening the All Blacks/NZ national team article name debate, there's no such thing as a New Zealand number. --hippo43 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support That's what it's listed as at the sources (e.g. stats.allblacks.com) so happy with that. - Shudde ^talk 12:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Support Makes perfect sense,... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment ... but why exactly is that only used for NZ teams? Springbok players, for example, have a Springbok number eg. Flip van der Merwe Springbok profile. Can't this be changed to something more generic so it can be used for all countries? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of national teams don't have this, so making up something generic like "National team number" would be OR. I would include the option for every team that does it, and use the wording that each country uses. --hippo43 (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support however I oppose the inclusion of this parameter at all for the very reason that hippo43 mentions above: not all national teams assign numbers to their players, so why should New Zealand or any other nations receive special treatment. To be honest, I don't think it's that important. That said, if it must be included, it should be included by its proper name. If need be, we can provide a parameter to define the label based on which national team the player plays for. – Pee Jay 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I initially just wanted to correct the mistake, but actually these numbers aren't notable. AFAICT they don't appear in any secondary sources. They are not important enough to be in the infobox, or in the article at all, so they should be binned. --hippo43 (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

They are in secondary sources (so not just found on the NZRU website), and are notable (for the same reason), but don't think they need to be included in the infobox. I'm happy for them to stay or go, but if they stay I agree with Hippo's proposal. - Shudde ^talk 10:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

National team(s) section - club/team heading

Under national teams, the heading Club/team needs to be changed, as it doesn't relate to clubs. --hippo43 (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - for the sections other than clubs just have team. - Shudde ^talk 12:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Preventing wrapping in club history

Can we change the following line:

{{!}} {{{ru_proclubs}}}

to

{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_proclubs}}}}}

This has been added to the parameter in some articles and means there will only be line breaks when explicitly requested. Seems to make more sense to put it in the template rather than thousands of articles. noq (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully support that. In some articles, the layout might appear incorrect after doing that, if hard-coded breaks were used to make the year/team/caps/points line up. But they might also appear incorrect when Wikipedia is accessed with different screen resolutions, etc. So I suggest making the change you propose and then fixing up entries that isn't right. I'd apply that to all team name fields though (i.e. Super Rugby, provincial, national, etc). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

good point - forgot about those.

So, change all of the following lines (from line followed by to line)

{{!}} {{{ru_proclubs}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_proclubs}}}}}

{{!}} {{{rl_proclubs}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{rl_proclubs}}}}}

{{!}} {{{city_vs_country_team}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{city_vs_country_team}}}}}

{{!}} {{{sooteam}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{sooteam}}}}}

{{!}} {{{rl_nationalteam}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{rl_nationalteam}}}}}

{{!}} colspan=3 {{!}} {{{rl_coachclubs}}}
{{!}} colspan=3 {{!}} {{nowrap|{{{rl_coachclubs}}}}}

{{!}} colspan=3 class="org" {{!}} {{{ru_currentteam}}}
{{!}} colspan=3 class="org" {{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_currentteam}}}}}

{{!}} colspan=4 {{!}} {{{ru_youthclubs}}}
{{!}} colspan=4 {{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_youthclubs}}}}}

{{!}} colspan=3 {{!}} {{{ru_amateurclubs}}}
{{!}} colspan=3 {{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_amateurclubs}}}}}

{{!}} {{{ru_province}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_province}}}}}

{{!}} {{{super14}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{super14}}}}}

{{!}} colspan=2 {{!}} {{#if:{{{ru_currentclub|}}}|{{{ru_currentclub}}} }}
{{!}} colspan=2 {{!}} {{#if:{{{ru_currentclub|}}}|{{nowrap|{{{ru_currentclub}}} }}}}

{{!}} {{{ru_nationalteam}}}
{{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_nationalteam}}}}}

{{!}} colspan=2 {{!}} {{{ru_sevensnationalteam}}}
{{!}} colspan=2 {{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_sevensnationalteam}}}}}

{{!}} colspan=3 {{!}} {{{ru_coachclubs}}}
{{!}} colspan=3 {{!}} {{nowrap|{{{ru_coachclubs}}}}}

noq (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Business moves

Many ex-Rugby Players are now becoming Managing Directors / CEOs / other business related jobs of various Rugby Clubs. As well as a playing career header and a coaching career header can we get a business header? Underneath we could show the years held, what post, what club etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedis1 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose adding anything like this. If you ask me we have a large amount of information in the infobox already. I'd rather keep it a little trimmer and just include information like this in the article as prose. -- Shudde ^talk 00:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Error: Template displays duplicate "career" headers for coaches who were also players

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Bug somewhere here may be able to resolve

– Redrose64 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been pointed out here that the {{Infobox rugby biography}} at Dave Gallaher is displaying "rugby union" twice for some reason. I have figured out that the bug was introduced by this rather innocuous edit [3], but I've not been able to resolve it unless I remove information from the infobox. Does someone here with a more technical knowledge of such things know what is going on? Thanks. -- Shudde ^talk 06:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Shudde: It's not a bug in Dave Gallaher but in {{Infobox rugby biography}}. This infobox is coded such that there are four ways that the heading "Rugby union career" may be displayed.

if |ru_position= is non-blank
if |ru_position= is non-blank and |ru_currentposition= is non-blank and |ru_position= is blank or absent (this is impossible: |ru_position= can't be both blank and non-blank)
if |ru_position= is blank or absent and |ru_currentposition= is blank or absent and |ru_coachclubs= is non-blank
if |ru_coachclubs= is non-blank and |ru_refereecomps= is blank or absent and |ru_currentposition= is blank or absent

It's a strange set of combinations~~, and should really be brought up at Template talk:Infobox rugby biography~~. But for the specific case of Dave Gallaher, |ru_position= is non-blank; |ru_currentposition= is absent; |ru_coachclubs= is non-blank; |ru_refereecomps= is absent, so cases (1) and (4) both apply. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks very much for that quick and comprehensive response! Yeah that template is just a mess (for a number of reasons) and I'd happily have it redesigned. -- Shudde ^talk 00:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Plastikspork § conditionals on Infobox rugby biography

– Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at Dave Gallaher. The darker blue Rugby union career appears twice. If I populate the rfereee values, it disappears (but Gallaher doesn't need ref values). I think the cascading logic is more than a little off. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 09:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh sorry didn't see retirement box. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 09:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lingzhi: I explained this exact matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Bug somewhere here may be able to resolve. ~~I indicated that the proper place to discuss the problem would be Template talk:Infobox rugby biography, but nothing has yet been posted there~~. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason for the multiple instances of "Rugby League career" and "Rugby union career". Just need one conditional for each, with tests for all possibilities, eg.:

if ru_position or ru_currentposition or ru_referee or ru_coachclubs or ru_refereecomps

print Rugby union career (with appropriate shading)

(and do the same for rugby league) • Lingzhi♦(talk) 11:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

~~@Lingzhi: This is the wrong venue, not least because it's the talk page of a retired user. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)~~

name

Rugby union career

Coaching career
Years	Team
ru_coachyears	ru_coachclubs

This infobox displays duplicate "career" headings for players who also have coaching fields entered. This can be seen in the examples to the right (from the template documentation for RU coaches who have been RU players and RL coaches). For real world examples, I checked the first 50 transclusions at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox rugby biography and 10 of those articles contain the duplicate heading:

I first noticed this a while back but did not try to figure it out due to the notice at the top of the template stating it is being merged with Template:Infobox rugby union biography. However, that notice was added in April 2014 and the templates still have not been merged. I recently had a request about this problem posted at User:Zyxw#conditionals on Infobox rugby biography. Perhaps someone could take a look and make the needed corrections? -- Zyxw (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've moved two directly-related threads from elsewhere, so that we can keep it all in one place, per WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed by User:Frietjes over a series of five edits made within the last hour (diff). -- Zyxw (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64, Zyxw, and Frietjes: Thanks for all that. Would it be too much to ask for one of you to close the discussion above (I was involved). Unfortunately we've had people Wikipedia:Content forking this template to create two others (with are both transcluded > 500 times, but that's still far less than this template). The result of a merge discussion ages ago was merge, but people continue to transclude the redundant templates. Anyone know of an automated or semi-automated method of converting from one template to another? -- Shudde ^talk 05:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new update

name

Personal information

Full name

birth_name

Date of birth

birth_date

Place of birth

birth_place

Date of death

death_date

Place of death

death_place

Height

height

Weight

weight

School

school

University

university

Relatives

relatives

Height and weight correct as of weight_update.

Playing information

Position

ru_position

Current team

ru_currentteam

Youth career

ru_youthclubs

Amateur career

Years

Team

ru_amateuryears

ru_amateurclubs

correct as of ru_amupdate.

Senior club

Years

Team

Apps

(points)

ru_clubyears

ru_proclubs

ru_clubcaps

ru_clubpoints

correct as of ru_clubupdate.

Representative team

Years

Team

Apps

(points)

ru_nationalyears

ru_nationalteam

ru_nationalcaps

ru_nationalpoints

correct as of ru_ntupdate.

Sevens national team

Years

Team

Evts

ru_sevensnationalyears

ru_sevensnationalteam

ru_sevensnationalcomp

correct as of ru_sevensupdate.

Coaching information

Years

Team

ru_coachyears

ru_coachclubs

correct as of ru_coachupdate.

Refereeing information

Years

Competition

Apps

ru_refereeyears

ru_refereecomps

ru_refereeapps

correct as of ru_refereeupdate.

Official website

website

module

This is basically a proposal for a new update with the current template. To your right is a brief example on what it would look like. Tell me what your guys thoughts are below. The full changes are on the Infobox rugby biography/sandbox4 article if this were to change.

Kind regards, Kidsoljah (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

CUA 27 what do you think? Good idea or nah? Kidsoljah (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Kidsoljah — Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. I like the blue coloured "Personal Information" bar you have added; it nicely separates personal info from rugby info. I'm not a fan of some other changes though. Adding a line for current team seems unnecessary — that info is already listed in the clubs section of the infobox, so it's duplicative. Also, I prefer the "national team" heading instead of the "representative" heading, as national team is plain English that is more understandable to the reader who doesn't know much about rugby. My main suggestion would be to move this discussion to the WP:RU talk page to see what others think; this infobox talk page doesn't get much traffic. Cheers! CUA 27 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Forget about it, we will NEVER have an "actual" infobox for RUGBY UNION..just a crappy rip off version from soccer...I have given up on this project, you should to.--Ste moc 12:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the template looks good. Representative is accurate as some of the "national" teams that would be listed there are not national, for example the British and Irish Lions, the New Zealand Maori (Maori All Blacks), a World XV (yes they don't play often now but they do, and they have) and the Pacific Islands XV. Representative is plain English. -- Shudde ^talk 17:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The only other recommendation is changing "caps" to "appearances" as being capped is often reserved for certain matches (especially internationally). -- Shudde ^talk 17:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Information about update

The purpose I propose for a new update is because of the conflict this infobox has caused and also it is in need of one desperately. The few changes I have made are;

I have changed "caps" to "apps". Many of users like Shudde have made it clear that this is a sensible change, mainly because caps are commonly refereed to certain matches like international ones.

I have removed the "Super Rugby", "Provincial/State sides" and "Professional / senior clubs" headings as I personally think it's to much input into what should be a basic infobox for rugby fans and people that don't know to much about rugby to understand. As TheMightyPeanut pointed out there is no point in having separate sections for these and that the traditional "provinces" (eg. in Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa) are all operating as professional clubs. And also, why split out Super Rugby when Heineken Cup rugby isn't split out in the Northern Hemisphere? which I firmly agree upon.

I have removed all Rugby League headings and information as the sport already has an infobox and it's a separate sport.

I have removed the "New Zealand No." as it isn't partially fair on other nations because they don't have this. For example; South Africa and the United States both have this number profile but theirs isn't being used. Also "New Zealand No." doesn't exist as it's called "All Black number" as hippo43 stated.

RU first?

Is there a way in this infobox for the RU section to display first over the RL section? Mattlore (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it would be relatively trivial. I don't see much purpose, though; the alphabetical order is nice. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean, since the TFD is clearly backfiring (I know I'm being dramatic, it's only been four hours), I suppose there's no reason to even have league in this template. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated to the TfD discussion. I was asking because I was editing Arthur Summons‎ earlier, which uses this infobox. Usually, I would re-order it to have the infobox in chronological order. Mattlore (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. I suppose I could have a "first order" parameter that would switch the preference for how they're arranged in the IB. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The RL can do it if that helps, but I don't know how it works behind the scenes (and I'm not trying to "score points" on one vs the other :) ). Anyway, not a big issue - was just here to check I wasn't missing something obvious! Mattlore (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, that explains some of the more... interesting code I saw in the RL template. But yeah, at the moment it's not doable, but it could be (and easier, if I'm thinking right). Primefac (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with update

@Primefac: I know you have been updating the template (because of the annoying forking to new templates) and thank you for that. But do your edits explain a problem that I have noticed recently? Unless there is something in the years parameter, we don't see teams displayed. In some case teams have been to a templates parameters without the corresponding years added because exact years when a player was with them is either unknown, or not explicitly referenced. In the past the teams showed up regardless, but now they don't see to. See for example George Williams (rugby union) (ru_amateuryears = | ru_amateurclubs = [[Poneke Football Club]]). Is there a way of fixing this? -- Shudde ^talk 15:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, that has always been an issue with the template (at least, my changes so far have done nothing to cause or fix it). I think it's an issue with {{infobox3cols}}, which is used in a subtemplate to display the club appearances, not being able to use |data1b= if |data1a= is blank. I'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Yeah sorry didn't mean to imply it was definitely your edits, it's just something I noticed recently and after I saw your changes I thought the two were probably related. But thanks for looking into it because I think I'd struggle to get to the bottom of that one! -- Shudde ^talk 15:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries (I didn't think you were accusing me, I was just curious if I had done it inadvertently). I'm pretty sure I've fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes looks like it. Many thanks! -- Shudde ^talk 16:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Hey. I've found another problem unfortunately. Joe Warbrick gives an example. It's the parentheses in the scoring column. It was bought up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joe Warbrick/archive1. Thanks for all your work, but is there any way to fix this (I couldn't figure it out myself). -- Shudde ^talk 16:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Crap, I was going to fix that and I forgot. Thanks Shudde, I'll get to it shortly; I just need to add an exception for the multiple-entries-in-one-parameter parameters like |clubpoints=. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Again, thanks. Let me know if you find anything else. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Full name and birth_name

This template displays birth_name as "Full name", thereby treating them as synonyms which is incorrect, since people can change names. --Pipetricker (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sevens national teams

Hi, can someone look at changing how sevens teams are displayed? Currently they are indistinguishable from 15s national teams and pretty misleading. See Matt Burke for example. Could someone change the section heading from National team(s) to National sevens team(s)? --hippo43 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone with the ability please make the change I suggested above? AFAICT, this would mean changing header130 to:

header130 = {{#if:{{{ru_sevensnationalteam1|{{{ru_sevensnationalteam|}}}}}}|National sevens team(s)}}

thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - New Zealand number

Can someone please change "New Zealand number" to "All Black number"? Consensus from several years ago in discussion above, that if it is to be included, it should be changed. thanks --hippo43 (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for doing this. Could you change it to "All Black no.", not "All Blacks no."? As far as I can tell, All Black number, in the singular, is correct. thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, second-guessed myself. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

This edit request to Template:Infobox rugby biography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I noticed that there are inbox stats available for All Black (New Zealand) numbers and player ID's.

Would it be possible to do the same for Springbok rugby players? Tomza83 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Do they Springboks have an equivalent number that is permanently assigned? Nothing mentioned on the SA Rugby website. noq (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This is kind of a two-part decline. The first is this - the All Blacks have pages dedicated to each player, and I was unable to find a "central directory" of former players for the Springboks. The second is to answer noq's question - yes, as far as I can tell each player does have a unique number that is assigned, but also it looks like every national team has permanent numbers assigned. If we disregard the URL/website link question, this would mean that we would need to add in a parameter for every national team number (i.e. Stuart Hogg would be listed as 1025 for Scotland. Either way, this will need more discussion before a change can be made. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

RL/RU first, again

Can anyone add the option to have RU or RL listed first? Like at Template:Infobox rugby league biography? Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, should be pretty easy. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Field for Tries scored as distinct from points

Hi Can we have a field for tries scored? I am updating the Terry Holmes page (Former Welsh dual code from 1980s). From the Cardiff RFC page I can see he scored 123 tries inn 193 games. http://cardiffrfc.com/terry-holmes

He was not a kicker for the most part. The number of tries scored for any player is noteworthy and should be a separate field no?

Especially when you consider that the number of points for a try has changed over time - 4 during most of his career. Now 5. Way back it was 3 I think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighPark.6111 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The last time this was discussed there was general opposition to breaking down the total points, mainly because those involved in the discussion felt that it cluttered the infobox with pointless stats. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest two scoring stats - points and tries- for several reasons. Tries have a special significance and if you go by points alone then the leading scorers will always be kickers. I agree that breaking out other ties of scoring- drop goals, penalties conversions etc would be tedious — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighPark.6111 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Problem with template?

I've been trying to change George Ford (rugby union) to the up to date use of the parameters. But it doesn't work and I can't work out why. It works when I take out some of the rep teams, is it just too big with all of them? I don't see why that is the case, when Schalk Burger has as many rep sides though? Anyone any ideas? I've left Ford without all the rep sides to leave it in a good state

example: {{Infobox rugby biography |name = George Ford |image = George Ford 2014 Bath.jpg |caption = |birth_name = George Thomas Ford |birth_date = (1993-03-16) 16 March 1993 (age 31) |birth_place = Oldham, England |height = 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in) |weight = 87 kilograms (13 st 10 lb; 192 lb)^[1] |relatives = Mike Ford (father)
Joe Ford (brother)
Jacob Ford (brother) |school = Rishworth School
St George's School, Harpenden | currentclub = Leicester Tigers | position = Fly-half | years1 = 2009–2013 | clubs1 = Leicester Tigers | apps1 = 42 | points1 = 253 | years2 = 2012 | clubs2 = →Leeds Carnegie (loan) | apps2 = 2 | points2 = 5 | years3 = 2013–2017 | clubs3 = Bath | apps3 = 90 | points3 = 972 | years4 = 2017–Present | clubs4 = Leicester Tigers | apps4 = 44 | points4 = 488 | clubupdate = 19 May 2019 | repyears1 = 2008–2010 | repteam1 = England U18 | repcaps1 = 14 | reppoints1 = 30 | repyears2 = 2011–2012 | repteam2 = England U20 | repcaps2 = 11 | reppoints2 = 143 | repyears3 = 2013 | repteam3 = [[England Saxons] | repcaps3 = 2 | reppoints3 = 0 | repyears4 = 2014–Present | repteam4 = England | repcaps4 = 55 | reppoints4 = 245 | repupdate = 22 April 2019 }}Skeene88 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Your example is missing a second closing bracket on England Saxons. Is that the issue?

George Ford

Birth name

George Thomas Ford

Date of birth

16 March 1993 (age 31)

Place of birth

Oldham, England

Height

1.75 m (5 ft 9 in)

Weight

87 kg (13 st 10 lb; 192 lb)^[2]

School

Rishworth School
St George's School, Harpenden

Notable relative(s)

Mike Ford (father)
Joe Ford (brother)
Jacob Ford (brother)

Rugby union career

Senior career
Position(s)	Fly-half
Current team	Leicester Tigers
Years	Team	Apps	(Points)
2009–2013	Leicester Tigers	42	(253)
2012	→Leeds Carnegie (loan)	2	(5)
2013–2017	Bath	90	(972)
2017–Present	Leicester Tigers	44	(488)
Correct as of 19 May 2019
International career
Years	Team	Apps	(Points)
2008–2010	England U18	14	(30)
2011–2012	England U20	11	(143)
2013	England Saxons	2	(0)
2014–Present	England	55	(245)
Correct as of 22 April 2019

or is there something else? noq (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was! Thanks for the quick help!Skeene88 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

^ "RFU Player profiles". web page. RFU. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
^ "RFU Player profiles". web page. RFU. Retrieved 8 April 2013.

Edit request - honorific prefix/suffix parameters

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In order to bring this template inline with other sport bio infoboxes (such as sportsperson and cricketer), I propose adding |honorific_prefix= and |honorific_suffix=. At the moment, on articles such as Martin Johnson (rugby union), details that should be in these parameters are simply being added to |name= instead. I propose the same formatting as Template:Infobox sportsperson, ie:

| title = {{#ifeq:{{{child|{{{embed|}}}}}}|yes|'''Rugby career'''|{{#if:{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific prefix|}}}}}}|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific prefix|}}}}}} }}<includeonly>{{If empty|{{{name|}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</includeonly>{{#if:{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific suffix|}}}}}}| {{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific suffix|}}}}}}}}}}

Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. There's something that isn't working in your code (see this travesty), and while I don't disagree with the changes I cannot figure out where the code is breaking (there are the proper number of brackets, braces, pipes, etc). The one thing I do know is that |child=, |honorific prefix= and |honorific suffix= should be removed; we only need one parameter name if we're adding new ones. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Capitalisation

This edit request to Template:Infobox rugby biography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Would it be possible for someone to correct the capitalisation of "career" in the bits where it currently says "Youth Career"? There's no reason for it to be capitalised like that. – Pee Jay 15:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Documentation page layout problematic

@Primefac: Page is long both with and without the 《clear》

Screenshot With clear template
Screenshot No clear Template

--GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 13:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Weight

I've seen some slow-burning edit wars this last year over a player's weight. Yes, there is vandalism where a sportsperson suddenly weighs 500kg, but I'm talking stupid things like 115kg-to-116kg editing over the course of months. Barring significant opposition, I plan on removing the functionality from this template. Note that {{infobox person}} lists it as deprecated. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PrimefacI realise I'm late to the table here, but I'm not sure this a great idea. I know full well the BLP issues of battling with new accounts fiddling with weights and it is, in all fairness, a huge pain in the ass. I don't think that means we should just dump it, however - I don't think simply giving up in the face of the challenge is the best way forward. Also, I understand that infobox person lists it as deprecated, but I think weight has a specific relevance to biographies of athletes, especially rugby players. I think we should reinstitute this parameter. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Weight should be reinstated; agree with User:Elahrairah on the relevance to rugby players. Both weight and height are common metrics in contact sports such as the rugby codes, American football, and the like. For some sports like cricket or perhaps association football, this may be of lesser interest. But a rugby biography misses something if weights are censored out, like baskeball would without heights. -- Ham105 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured discussion wouldn't happen until after I changed things and people noticed. I still don't think it's entirely relevant; I mean, I know pack weight is important, but on a day-to-day basis I'm not sure it's important to know if someone is 115 or 116kg. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there a very many ways in which the information can be useful. It can be helpful when trying to understand selection policies, for example, understanding why players play in certain positions. It is also a, objective, quantitative measure which can explain why a particular player is effective in a particular role. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

This edit request to Template:Infobox rugby biography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi there can you add to the template a World Rugby Hall of Fame info bar. Just like they have for NFL and NBA hall of fame players. 115.188.160.148 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Also, it would be helpful for someone to propose wording for the label (the bold text), and decide where in the infobox the label should appear. What should the parameter's value be? For Edgar Mobbs, for example, would the value be "1712", so that an automatic link could be created to https://www.world.rugby/halloffame/inductees/1712 ? Do some thinking and have a discussion, and a template editor will be able to help you create what you want to see. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For a big change like this, I'd prefer to see a sandboxed and tested version, at the very least as proof-of-concept so there aren't a dozen rounds of back-and-forth making tweaks. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

This edit request to Template:Infobox rugby biography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

hi how would I go about creating a sandbox for World rugby HOF players to be added to the template 115.188.160.148 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to test something out in the sandbox, you should do so at Template:Infobox rugby biography/sandbox. I've reset it, so at the moment it's identical to the main template. When you have made your changes, you can see how they look by testing it at Template:Infobox rugby biography/testcases. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

This edit request to Template:Infobox rugby biography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Like you have with All Black number - the B&I Lions jersey is coveted as well, could we add that to the properties? Chrispalmer10 (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. firefly ( t · c ) 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Changing this template - discussion link

Cross-posting a discussion I started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Biography_template_spitball regarding some potentially major changes to this template. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Image Sizes

Hi Guys

Just looking at Jack Nowell and the image is taking up the entirety of the page for me. This is also happening at Tom Croft, Geordan Murphy, Richie McCaw. It isn't happening for me on other people. Is the infobox broken? I am still using the old skin for wiki if that affects it. Skeene88 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No, a recent edit (yes, it was mine) to the template messed up the infobox size formatting. I've fixed the issue and it should start propagating through the current uses. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sevens National Team

In section of rugby seven national team is comps instead of Appearances and Points, Is that the same? Thanks. Vux33 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That is intentional, yes. Primefac (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

[1] "RFU Player profiles". web page. RFU. Retrieved 8 April 2013.

[2] "RFU Player profiles". web page. RFU. Retrieved 8 April 2013.

[1]

[2]