This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Can someone please explain to me why the tables of attendance data aren't violations of WP:CRUFT? – PeeJay 17:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stmky: This is not your own personal fiefdom. You need to engage on this subject or you may be blocked for failing to act collaboratively. – PeeJay 07:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stmky: I know you've been alerted to this or you wouldn't have come rushing back so quickly to restore the content. If you do not respond, I will escalate this to get admins involved. – PeeJay 07:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PeeJay If you are a rugby fan, but an occasional visitor to this topic. You should know that such attendance tables are a tradition of this topic. They were always in previous years. We will figure out how to edit this section without you. Thanks for attention. Stmky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmky (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It's always been that way" is not a valid argument. You have to provide a reason why the information needs to be included in the first place, not just say "we've always done it". Thank you for replying, but please do not reinsert the info until you can provide a good reason why it is not a violation of WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. – PeeJay 10:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stmky: Please respond. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stmky:@PeeJay2K3: I'll add my two cents in here and say that it's a bit on the overkill as those stats are sourced which meants you could easily say that it's WP:CRUFT. If those same stats were for example, sourced than I would say to keep them but otherwise I would delete them. HawkAussie (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HawkAussie: I appreciate the response, and I agree with you that this info is overkill. I would also point out that info can be considered cruft even if it is sourced. It is entirely possible that some website may aggregate the attendance figures for this competition, but the definition of cruft is information that is only interesting or relevant to a limited number of readers, which this definitely would be. – PeeJay 06:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this info don't really need to be in the article. I wouldn't say that it's 100% cruft but it doesn't really give any useful information. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
