Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Assessment

message: This is my idea for importance standards:
Rules, organisation etc
:Top
::*Rules
::*IRB
::*Unions of tier one rugby nations
:High
::*Diff rugby union positions
::*Unions of tier two rugby nations
National Teams
: Top
::*National teams of tier one countries (tier one according to IRB)
::*Composite test playing teams with Test players from tier one countries (e.g Lions)
: High
::*National teams of tier two countries
::*Composite test teams with players from tier two countries (e.g. Pacific Is team)
: Medium
::*Other national teams that have competed in one or more Rugby World Cup
: Low
::*National rugby teams that have not competed in the Rugby World Cup
Club and provincial teams
:Top
::*Club and provincial teams that play in the Super 14 or Heineken Cup, or have done so within the last 5 years
::*Teams that have been champion of the top professional club competition in a tier one rugby nation within the last 8 years. For example, Top 14, NPC/ANZC, Currie Cup, Celtic League etc.
:High
::*Club or province that has competed in the top professional competition of a tier one rugby nation within the last 5 years.
:Medium
::*Club or province that has competed in the lower league of the top competition of a tier one nation within the last 5 years.
::*Club or province that has been champion or runner up in the top competition of a tier two rugby nationan within the last ten years.
:Low
::*Other club or province.
Players
:Top
::*Player named IRB player of the year.
::*Current captain of tier one national team.
::*Captain of World Cup winning team.
::*Player of tournament in Rugby World Cup
::*Player holding major record for tier one country. This includes; most test points, most tests, most test tries.
::*Winning captain of Heineken Cup or Super 14
::*Record point scorer for Heineken Cup or Super 14
::*Record point scorer for World Cup.
:High
::*Former Captains of a tier one rugby nations national team.
::*Player from tier one national team who's played over 20 Tests
::*Current captain of tier two national team
::*World cup winning player
::*Captain of champion team from top competition in tier one nation.
:Medium
::*Any player from tier one nation who has played a test
::*Player from tier two nation who has played over 20 tests
::*Professional player with title in domestic competition of top tier rugby nation.
:Low
::*Professional rugby player
Coaches
:Top
::*Current coach of tier one national team
::*Coach of world cup winning side
Competitions
:Top
::*Top international competition, World Cup, Tri-Nations, Six-Nations
::*Top provincial competition in Tier one nation
Society & History
:Top
::*History and society globally
::*History and society for tier one rugby nations
Please add to this and comment on it. Thanks. - Shudda talk 12:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a pretty good overview Shudda. The only thing I would change would be the national Unions being Top Importance. I can't say that there is that much to write/read about the unions, except maybe the RFU, and although they are very important, they are not as notable as say RWC/All Blacks/Lions/Heineken Cup..etc...Thoughts? Cvene64 14:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it really depends how much influence they have over the game in their country. For example in New Zealand the NZRU basically have the power to do what they want with players and competitions. In some other unions, esp in the northern hemisphere clubs are very important and so the unions aren't as influencial. Then you have Australia where the state unions more or less run the game. So I think maybe it's a different depending on the country. It's not a major issue though, these importance ratings are mainly supposed to tell us what articles are a higher priority then others as far as editing goes though. - Shudda talk 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I find these standards to be extremely generous. Players, coaches and teams (club and national teams) should be no higher than High-Importance as they do not form the basis for all of the information in the project. Similar to the structure used at WP:FOOTY, the top-importance articles category should contain only the absolutely essential information, such as Rugby union, Rugby union positions, International Rugby Board, Rugby World Cup, etc. I was absolutely shocked to find articles such as 2007 Hong Kong Sevens included amongst the Top-importance articles! These importance standards need looking at right away! – PeeJay 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does no one other than me actually give a shit that these importance standards are all wrong? Come on people, let's get some discussion going. – PeeJay 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my thoughts. I agree that the Rugby Unions should be top importance. If someone thinks there is very little to write about the unions hasn't read a book on rugby outside player biographies. The Unions have a fantastic history of shafting each other and meddling in player afairs, and lets face it it's how international rugby came about. They should stay top. The players and club thing about the last five years seems bizzare; history should count for something. I think that there should be some way teams and players should be high rating without being the top try scorer or current champions. Teams such as Cardiff, Blackheath, London Scottish, Llanelli, Cambridge University, these are automatically classed as Medium. Even though these teams and their ilk have produced 90% of international players over the last 120 years. Baby and bathwater seems to spring to mind.FruitMonkey (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree. The notability of a club/player/union is not temporary, and hence neither should their importance be temporary. Tier One rugby unions should be of High importance, with Tier Two and Three nations at Mid and Low importance respectively, IMO. – PeeJay 23:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure that the national unions are that important, as I doubt people will be that likely to search for articles about them. The senior national teams of those unions, however, would certainly be deserving of the importance levels I mentioned earlier for the unions. – PeeJay 23:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably going to be a lone voice in the importance of Unions, and I'm also coming from a blinkered UK perspective, but when you consider that national teams refused to play each other due to the shananigans of the Unions, plus the fact that the only reason league and union were split apart was the fact that the Unions fought so hard to prevent professionalism, plus if you take into account South Africa under apartheid, Shamatarism in Wales, the old farts of England. I know they won't be everyone's first stop, but I still believe they are important. Though I'm happy to be beaten down. Actually I can't believe I'm fighting this cause, 18 months ago I wouldn't have given a flyer.FruitMonkey (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the unions are important, but they are not quite as likely to be searched for as the national teams they run. At a push, I would say that the two could occupy the same importance status. – PeeJay 08:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm with the Monkey on this one, I believe that unions are important. The Scottish Football Union was notable in its opposition to professionalism, for example, and the French federation was notable for having set up FIRA, which helped undermine Commonwealth chauvinism in the game, by spreading it all over Continental Europe, and beyond. Even less notable unions have some significance - the Hong Kong body helped set up the most important sevens tournament in Asia, arguably paving the way for the variant's Olympic status, and Japan's body had the support of Prince Chichubu, and also had an influence on how rugby developed. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance standards 

message: I'am little hesitant to add anything to the A category, as it seems as though an article must be basically FA status to have an A rating...but...between A (and GA) and Start class, there is only a B category. I put articles like Twickenham, IRB and the Reds in the B category, and rated All Blacks as Start. I was going to put the ABs in B, but in comparison to the IRB/Reds article, the ABs really is not on the same level of quality, especially in terms of references...So heres the problem, if Reds/IRB are not A-Class, and thus B-Class, but ABs is good enough not to be Start, but not as good as the other Bs....what should we do?
I say we tone down the A requirements, as there really is not much point of having it the way it is right now, because any articles of that quality would either already be FA, or definantly be GA...so I think we should make A more flexible, so then there is not a huge variety of quality in the B articles...Thoughts? Cvene64 14:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I actually didn't come up with any of the criteria for the different ratings. They ratings are as per the wikipedia 1.0 programme (see WP:1.0). I certainly think that most RU articles are start, stub or B class. A class is a little tougher to determine and GA and FA need to go through a peer-review process anyway so we don't need to be determining that. - Shudda talk 21:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A-Rating

message: What should these be rated? Teams like Australia A are fairly important, and play against full nations like Fiji and so on. I think Australia is the only nation that has an u-21 team, but where should that go? Low? What about womens? Aus A also play in the Pacific Nat. comp. Cvene64 09:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that A team articles would not be as important as those from national teams that have played in the rugby world cup (no matter what tier they are). As well, someone wanting to read about rugby would prob look at the mens teams first, so women's teams would have to be rated less important. You are prob right that winners are mid, others low, although the Black Ferns would prob be a high, as they have won three WRWC in a row, and would be the most notible womens team in the world. - Shudda talk 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'A', u-21 and womens national teams?

message: What system should be used for rating stadiums? Cvene64 02:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, probably yes.--HamedogTalk|@ 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats a really good point. Feel free to come up some suggestions. There are a couple of things to consider though, one is that a lot of the stadiums are used for more then one sport. Secondly, there may be amnother wikiproject that deals with buildings/stadiums/architecture. If so may want to leave it to them. - Shudda talk 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just done a quick check and it appears this is under our jurisdiction. Here is my proposed policy.--HamedogTalk|@ 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds pretty good. But I would like to see 6N stadia as Top imo. Cvene64 06:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would keep it as is, having fewer stadia in the top importance should hopefully mean they get bought up to standard quicker. World Cup stadia should definitely be top, and the top priority. - Shudda talk 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By first match I mean the debut test match for a nation.--HamedogTalk|@ 10:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is actually a project that may be good to look at before we add this to the importance standards. WP:ARCH. - Shudda talk 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stadiums

message: I'd suggest expanding some criteria slightly:
High:
*Any stadium that has hosted an Argentina test against a Tier One country.
**Argentina is the only Tier One country that is not currently involved in a formal international league with other Tier One countries. IMHO, a stadium that has hosted an Argentina home match against a Tri Nations or Six Nations participant (e.g. Vélez Sársfield) is equivalent to a Tri Nations/Six Nations ground.
*Any stadium that has hosted the final of the Rugby World Cup Sevens.
**I believe that each Rugby World Cup Sevens is conducted in only one stadium, so "the final of" may be redundant.
Mid:
*Any other stadium that has hosted an Argentina home test.
What do you think? — Dale Arnett 10:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested expansion

message: I was just wondering why 2006-07 IRB Sevens World Series is rated as mid-importance but then articles such as 2006 Dubai Sevens and 2007 Wellington Sevens are rated as high on the importance scale? Since they are just one part of the tournament, shouldnt they be less important?Cstubbies 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning ratings 

message: On the link at the bottom of rugby related articles which shows a schedule of the international rugby calender i noticed that the Currie Vup, running from july to october was not included, even though much newer, and less recognised competitions such as the arc were included. Someone needs to add the currie cup to the schedule  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.185.73 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currie Cup not Included on International Schedule 

message: ::*Rugby World Cup squad listings
::*Lists
::*Team A v Team B history
::*Overviews of rugby union in tier three nations
::*Season results and seasonal competitions
::*All tier one nation tours not covered above
::*Womens teams
::*Tier 3 rugby teams that have not competed in the Rugby World Cup.
::*National sevens teams not included above
::*All tier 3 unions
::*Provincial competitions not covered above
::*Clubs or provincial teams that meet notability requirements and are not covered by above.
::*Players:-
:::*Any player who meets notability guidelines and is not covered by above
::*Coaches:-
:::*Any coach who meets notability guidelines and is not covered by above
::*Any stadium used in rugby union that meets notability and is not included in the above.
=====Comments=====
Any comments on the above would be useful. This reclassification should make it easier to improve articles that help the lay person understand rugby. --Bob (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, some input. This list was much adapted from the current one in use, which I think should be overhauled, though I was appraoching it slowly and cautiously...  
**We remove the captain of tier one team, agreed.
**Modern day player >25 caps (was previously 20 caps). Now listed since the last world cup, although this is just a suggestion.
**Records can be cumulative, but I agree as this unfairly skews the high class towards backs at the detriment of the forwards and towards the modern game. How does one rank Finlay Calder in high? Undoubtedly one of the best players Scotland has ever produced, yet cannot be listed as high importance... --Bob (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that discussion of this has stagnated? People have obviously lost interest. I like the looks of what has been discussed, but what is missing is a breakdown per subject area. ie players, coaches, national teams. This in the current criteria is very useful, as it can serve as a quick reference when performing ratings. If you all have moved on, I will pick up what has been done here, and formulate into something that can be posted on the assessment page, for all to use.SauliH (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think we talked quite a bit but no-one took the bull by the horns. To be honest with you, I feel that any sensible assessment list will be welcomed, if it is acted upon. As at present, due to no consensus being reached assessment is just not occuring as the stats will show you. I'm sure there will be some who think that 'We must get the assessment criteria correct before we start assessing, otherwise we could end up redoing everything'; but I feel that we are static and the assessment is now running away from the project. Any positive input is appreciated, and if you want to run with this then please do, I'm sure others will lend support or give advice once things begin to move. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay here is what I have compiled. I think I have encapsulated what was discussed above with one exception, that is the player caps issue that was discussed. I have tweaked it somewhat using longevity as a guideline instead. I took a look at where 25 caps would typically round out to # of years playing and it was roughly 5 years or so... ( I went to international test cap listings at scrum.com, paged through to where players with 25 caps were listed, and averaged a sample). I think there is something to be said for the players who are the anchors of certain teams, and play for over a decade at test level. I have therefore added a criteria for players who have played ten years or more to the High category. I have put my own interpretation onto some other areas also, but in general keeping to the spirit of what was discussed two years ago.
Feel free to comment below. I hope we can move this to the project page shortly. You can view/edit it separate to this page at Template:WPRU Assessment guide.
SauliH (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Not sure about the grading of the Magners League on a par with the Heineken cup and Super14. The Magners league should be at the same level as the Top 14 and Guinness Premiership as these leagues provide the qualifying teams for the Heineken cup. noq (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck it out.SauliH (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not seing too many problems, I have noticed the likes of Stradey Park and Paul Roos (rugby player) would become low articles, but we have never said that any set of rules would be hard and fast. And we can always apply some common sense to articles that obviously don't fit. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, to me that is right. The whole point of creating these differentiations is to really bring out the key articles for the subject of Rugby Union. If you lower the bar too far, it reduces the effectiveness of this tool. At the same time there are going to be those articles we just have to say, "yeah this one breaks the rules and is more important than the rules would indicate." I think we need to give some level of latitude for that.SauliH (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: There does not seem to be any objection to the update. I am going to place it on the assessment page, under the presumption, that this is not necessarily going to be static, but something that may possibly do with some fine tuning. Please make suggestions in the new section below with regards to changes.SauliH (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great; lets take this forward. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Low-Class

message: Any comments on the above would be useful. This reclassification should make it easier to improve articles that help the lay person understand rugby. --Bob (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, some input. This list was much adapted from the current one in use, which I think should be overhauled, though I was appraoching it slowly and cautiously...  
**We remove the captain of tier one team, agreed.
**Modern day player >25 caps (was previously 20 caps). Now listed since the last world cup, although this is just a suggestion.
**Records can be cumulative, but I agree as this unfairly skews the high class towards backs at the detriment of the forwards and towards the modern game. How does one rank Finlay Calder in high? Undoubtedly one of the best players Scotland has ever produced, yet cannot be listed as high importance... --Bob (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that discussion of this has stagnated? People have obviously lost interest. I like the looks of what has been discussed, but what is missing is a breakdown per subject area. ie players, coaches, national teams. This in the current criteria is very useful, as it can serve as a quick reference when performing ratings. If you all have moved on, I will pick up what has been done here, and formulate into something that can be posted on the assessment page, for all to use.SauliH (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think we talked quite a bit but no-one took the bull by the horns. To be honest with you, I feel that any sensible assessment list will be welcomed, if it is acted upon. As at present, due to no consensus being reached assessment is just not occuring as the stats will show you. I'm sure there will be some who think that 'We must get the assessment criteria correct before we start assessing, otherwise we could end up redoing everything'; but I feel that we are static and the assessment is now running away from the project. Any positive input is appreciated, and if you want to run with this then please do, I'm sure others will lend support or give advice once things begin to move. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay here is what I have compiled. I think I have encapsulated what was discussed above with one exception, that is the player caps issue that was discussed. I have tweaked it somewhat using longevity as a guideline instead. I took a look at where 25 caps would typically round out to # of years playing and it was roughly 5 years or so... ( I went to international test cap listings at scrum.com, paged through to where players with 25 caps were listed, and averaged a sample). I think there is something to be said for the players who are the anchors of certain teams, and play for over a decade at test level. I have therefore added a criteria for players who have played ten years or more to the High category. I have put my own interpretation onto some other areas also, but in general keeping to the spirit of what was discussed two years ago.
Feel free to comment below. I hope we can move this to the project page shortly. You can view/edit it separate to this page at Template:WPRU Assessment guide.
SauliH (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Not sure about the grading of the Magners League on a par with the Heineken cup and Super14. The Magners league should be at the same level as the Top 14 and Guinness Premiership as these leagues provide the qualifying teams for the Heineken cup. noq (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck it out.SauliH (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not seing too many problems, I have noticed the likes of Stradey Park and Paul Roos (rugby player) would become low articles, but we have never said that any set of rules would be hard and fast. And we can always apply some common sense to articles that obviously don't fit. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, to me that is right. The whole point of creating these differentiations is to really bring out the key articles for the subject of Rugby Union. If you lower the bar too far, it reduces the effectiveness of this tool. At the same time there are going to be those articles we just have to say, "yeah this one breaks the rules and is more important than the rules would indicate." I think we need to give some level of latitude for that.SauliH (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: There does not seem to be any objection to the update. I am going to place it on the assessment page, under the presumption, that this is not necessarily going to be static, but something that may possibly do with some fine tuning. Please make suggestions in the new section below with regards to changes.SauliH (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great; lets take this forward. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Please add suggestions for changes to the assessment criteria below.SauliH (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on further fine tuning of Assessment criteria