Talk:Rugby league

message: Which code of rugby is more popular overall? Is one more popular than the other in certain areas/countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew zot (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd already answered this but can't find it anywhere.  Rugby league is more popular in east Yorkshire and west Lancashire of northern England and at club level in Australia.  In the remainder of the UK and at international level in Australia I believe rugby union is more popular.  In the north RL has working class roots and RU is seen as the pompous domain of public schoolboys only, but elsewhere in the world RU has working class roots as well so RL hasn't taken hold.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rugby union is more popular worldwide but is not a mass sport in more than a handful of countries New Zealand being the most obvious example. Even where rugby league is only a small minority interest, rugby union is generally only the sport of middle / upper classes. Largely due to the history of amateurism in the sport. The areas where union is most popular are those where amateur rules were not strictly enforced or ignored. In contrast league is only played to a serious degree in a few countries but is much more of working class sport. In the UK the two hot spots are Yorkshire / Lancashire / Cumbria where league is a strong rival to soccer and Wales where union is a strong rival to soccer (some say union is more popular).GordyB 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: When compared to rugby league alone, yes. But let's not pretend rugby union is massive in Northumberland while its only Guinness Premiership team (Newcastle Falcons) continues to only draw about 7,000 per match. Especially not when Newcastle United F.C., Sunderland A.F.C and Middlesbrough F.C. continue to consistently draw multiple times as many fans. Northumberland is neither rugby union nor rugby league—it's association football from the border all the way down to Leeds. GW(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity between league and union

message: The current version states that an unqualified 'rugby' usually refers to union in areas where both games are played. Now I don't know of any part of the league playing world where rugby union would not have some presence and these days leagueis played to some degree virtually anywhere that union is. IMO the phrase where both games are played is meaningless.
It also implies that people in rugby league strongholds refer to rugby union as 'rugby'. In Australia this is true but not in England. In somewhere like Leeds, Whitehaven, Wigan or Hull 'rugby' is likely to mean 'rugby league', if people want to say 'rugby union' then they say 'rugby union', 'union' or something less polite.GordyB 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is Oz biased - guilty as charged :p.  People here who use rugby to specifically mean to league, well it's generally a sign they're not absolutely clued in, or at least emanate from non-league parts of the country. --Angry mob mulls options 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it so it refers to England, but I think it might be more appropriate to have a separate section on the different names that league goes under in different countries e.g. Queenslanders and New South Welshmen say 'football' but that is rare in England.GordyB 12:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not entirely true in Australia either. Rugby Union supporters and private schools generally use Rugby and League for short but in the wider community, they are both referred to as football and seperated as League and Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.219.118 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely true that an unqualified 'rugby' in Aus usually means union which is what we were discussing. The 'football' issue is another issue altogether.GordyB 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Private school boys and white collar professionals use the "rugby" and "league" difference. They are both called Rugby quite often. If one said that they are going to the rugby, it could be either Waratahs or Bulldogs. There is no unwritten rule that "rugby" always equals union. It is just tradition that Union is considered older so for shorter reference, the term Rugby is normally used for it as opposed to "league" or "football" for rugby league. Rugby however can be used to describe either game in general reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.219.118 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's quite so clear cut. Aussie league players often talk about going to play 'rugby' when crossing codes. An act that annoys quite a few English league fans.GordyB 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go so far as to say it's not true. Rare is the usage of rugby by league people to actually mean league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont kno about Leeds/Wigan, but rugby, at least in media/popular culture, will always mean union. However, like the word football, if you say "We're going to the rugby", then yes, it can mean the tahs or doggies, I guess it is the same with "World Cup", in that, current events may dictate what someone is actually talking about. Cvene64 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Look North they'll use "rugby" for either.  During the short period where the seasons overlap they'll introduce the "rugby" then speficy which code as they cover each local team.  Yorkshire Phoenix   14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rugby versus rugby league

message: There is an edit from an anonymous editor that has changed some of the facts in the French section. The France national rugby league team article was similarly amended. The facts in this and the other article are sourced. I am not saying that they are definitely correct but they are verifiable.
I will revert the changes because no source has been given for the claims made e.g. that the orders to 'merge' league and union came from Berlin. If a source can be provided for this claim then it can be included in the article.GordyB 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rugby league in France

message: Here on this blog by Sean Fagan, the suggestion of only game being called "rugby" is examined.  He suggests that it was introduced by super 14 but I do remember some people using it before than. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.219.118 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I correctly understand your inarticulate statement, that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard.  Super 14 hasn't been around for very long.  Rugby Union has been refered to as Rugby for much longer than that in Australia.  I couldn't tell you exactly when it started (Tho i'd guess 1908) but Rugby league has had to be referenced as either League or Rugby League for as long as this 30 year old ozy can remember. NSWelshman 00:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, that article is bollocks. He seems to be saying that calling union "rugby" will make people more interested in rugby than league, which is why he's getting all worked up. Long bow to draw, the disparity in the spread of the codes (and potential further expansion) will/has little to do with naming conventions, IMO. --I like pants 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Different people will use slightly differing names for these sports. To suggest that "rugby is rugby union" is clearly just not true. There are two rugby codes. They are both rugby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.109.49 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In most of Yorkshire, Lancashire or Cumbria rugby=rugby league.GordyB 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, That's good. I stand corrected.--Jeff79 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rugby naming thing 

message: I keep deleting references to how much more popular / competitive union is or how soccer is the real enemy not union. I am going to keep deleting such references, this is an article about rugby league not "rugby league versus rugby union". Rugby union is an entirely different sport, you might as well include comparisons with cricket.GordyB 13:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References to rugby union

message: I have removed some text from the "rugby league worldwide" section that was nothing but vandalisation. Please keep an eye out, ta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.2.54.134 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rugby league worldwide vandalized 

message: I'm surprised this page isn't linked to a version in Russian as rugby league's more popular there than some of the other countries whose languages have links. How can we check that it doesn't exist in Russian and create a link if it does?--Jeff79 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian 

message: It is not nonsense to claim that Northern rugby union sides were dominant over teams from the South of England. That is what contemporary accounts even those written by Southeners said (see A People's Game: The Centenary History of Rugby League Football 1895-1995 by Geoffrey Moorhouse). It is also a fact that the majority of the England rugby union team of the time were from Yorkshire or Lancashire and that post 1895 the team went from being dominant in Europe to being a whipping boy. It is also a fact that the England county championship only ever left Yorkshire to go to Lancashire. Stop labelling things that you don't know as 'nonsense'.GordyB 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So called nonsense

message: I think the subject of rugby league's evolution through rule changes that moved it further and further away from rugby union is a really interesting topic.  I think a great thing to include in this article (or the Playing rugby league or History of rugby league articles) would be the details of each rule change and when/why they took place.  Some kind of timeline would be ideal.--Jeff79 03:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, on the evolution of rugby league, I really want to know more about Australia's role in the sport's development. Not sure where to find resources for this though. Australian rules football fans are all about how their game was invented in Australia (although there's debate that it's actually just an off-shoot of Gaelic football). Well, what about rugby league? In Australia we've generally accepted that it was invented in Britain, seemingly without giving it much thought. But I wonder where all the rule changes were devised. The way things are now, it's difficult to imagine the game in Australia following the UK's lead. Some recent rule changes were started by Super League (whether the Australian one or the UK one, I don't know). Maybe some of the rule changes in the past were instigated in Australia. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were. If that's the case, then the game as we know it today may even rival Aussie rules in terms of its "Australianness". As I said above, I find the evolution of RL a fascinating topic, and what I've read on wikipedia about it so far has really opened my eyes. I wanna go into even more detail about it and if possible open even more eyes further.--Jeff79 00:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule Changes 

message: The main trend now for differentiating between articles for people notable for their involvement in rugby league and people notable for other reasons who share the same name is to the use the suffix "(rugby league footballer)". The problem with this is that almost all notable coaches were once players, but may be more notable for their coaching career than their playing career (for example, Wayne Bennett, whose article is entitled Wayne Bennett (rugby league footballer) but is commonly linked to by Wayne Bennett (rugby league coach). The same situation exists with Jack Gibson, who is also most notable for his coaching. However both of these people had notable playing careers. Also, some people who are initially notable for their playing may become more notable later if they have a successful coaching career. Examples of this are Nathan Brown (rugby league footballer) and Jason Taylor (rugby league footballer), who (like many coaches) had playing careers that are no less notable than their current coaching careers. The importance of neither the coaching or playing aspects of an individual's career should be diminished by labelling his article either "coach" or "footballer".  My solution is to just use the suffix "(rugby league)".  In addition to being significantly shorter, whether playing or coaching, 'rugby league' is the topic all coaches and players have in common. Simple. What do others think?--Jeff79 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, it seems like a simple solution.CEP78 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea too. Bongomanrae 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After the apparent consensus reached here I started to change individuals' articles with '(rugby league footballer)' suffixes to just '(rugby league)' as I came across them.  Some have been changed back to include "footballer" for the reason that they are still players and have not yet become coaches or administrators. It was my intention for this new naming convention to apply to all individuals' articles with the '(rugby league footballer)' suffix in the title, not just the examples I mentioned above. Firstly, for consistency. It would be wrong to have some articles with the "footballer" and some without. As I stated above, rugby league is the one thing all these individuals have in common and mentioning it alone in the title is enough to differentiate their articles from other notable people of the same name. Secondly, the title is really only meant to have the name, plus (in my opinion) the absolute minimum extra information needed to differentiate them from other individuals with the same name. So shortening a long title like Corey Parker (rugby league footballer) to Corey Parker (rugby league) is a good enough reason in itself. The shorter the better. And thirdly, there is nothing to say that all the notable players who have articles at the moment won't become coaches, administrators, commentators, etc. in the future. Changing the naming convention now to use the suffix '(rugby league)' saves us from having to make any more changes later, regardless of what happens in an indivudual's career. In rare circumstances, such as the footballer going on to have a notable political or acting career that clearly overshadows the earlier part of his life spent playing football, the title may need to be changed.--Jeff79 00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always preferred (rugby) since a lot of players / coaches switch between codes, it is also shorter.GordyB 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being from Australia, where the word 'rugby' is generally synonymous with rugby union and alot of players and coaches don't switch between codes, I'd prefer '(rugby league)' and '(rugby union)' as suffixes used, depending on which is most prominent in the person's career. In the cases where individuals have been involved to a significant degree in both, '(rugby)' is currently used, and I think that's fair enough. I know that in Britain the two codes are more closely tied, but in Australia people tend to be very distinct about which one they mean to avoid confusion.  I don't mean to push the Australian way on all wikipedians, but it's in line with the way wikipedia generally separates the two as well (e.g. there's a category for league players and a category for union players). Also eliminates the problem that'd arise if there are famous league players and a famous union players that share the same name.--Jeff79 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably should all be (rugby league).  The Windler  talk  11:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about when a player has played in both codes. To me just rugby could indicate union was more important than league, rugby player would be the standard add-on within the union wikiproject. would rugby footballer be a middle-ground?Londo06 11:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention for individuals

message: See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Sports "revolt". Numerous WP:SPORTS child-projects are pretending that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guidelines don't exist. Needs to be resolved one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about ignoring of naming conventions raised at [[WT:NCP#Sports "revolt"]] 

message: 'Liberty Bell Cup' is listed under "Major Competitions" in the infobox at the top of the article.  If it were a major competition it (like all the others in the list) would have an article. What do others think about removing it from the list?--Jeff79 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Defintely not a major competition.GordyB 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like this list to be shortened to international competitions that would be considered truly 'major' as it now resembles a list of all international competitions regardless of whether they're minor or major. I think the World Cup, Tri-nations and World Club Challenge should be there. The Ashes and ANZAC test I could go either way on as they only involve two countries. Admittedly I don't know which of the European ones are big and which ones aren't. Also the Pacific and Emerging nations competitions I don't think could be considered major international contests to be listed alongside the World Cup and Tri-nations. What do others think?--Jeff79 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed minor competitions and added the Challenge Cup as it (like the World Club Challenge) has clubs from more than one country and is apparently pretty major as well.--Jeff79 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Competitions 

message: Seems an edit war has started in the Rugby League Worldwide section. A sentence in this section currently reads:
Rugby league is most popular in the north of England, Eastern Australia, parts of New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea, where rugby league is recognised as the national sport.
I don't think there's a need to specify which parts of these countries it is popular in. This is political correctness resulting from "rival" attitudes between football codes gone overboard. The sentence (as the section's heading indicates) is to be taken in a global context.  That is to say of all the countries in the world that have rugby league, it is most popular in these ones. It is not saying rugby league is the single most popular sport in these countries. The sentence lists countries that rugby league enjoys a significant degree of popularity in. That doesn't mean other kinds of sport aren't popular in those countries too. I think it's unneccesary to specify the regions. What do others think?--Jeff79 01:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't really thought of it that way, and I was probably taking umbrage at the claim that 'It is popular throughout Australia' by yet another RL POV pushing anon IP. Explained this way, I agree and will make the appropriate change. Dibo T | C 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's similar to the line that begins on some of the international pages: "Rugby league is a popular sport played in Estonia" - However, most people read this as if we're saying, "rugby league is a popular sport in Estonia". Go with what the average person reads it as. You can't go wrong then. I think the current line or the one you have above, is good enough. Its more descriptive and wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We're not trying to hide anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.185.40 (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Lebanese are generally just expats in Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.96.47 (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a debating forum. There is a place for views like this and it is called "Planet Rugby".GordyB (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby League Worldwide 

message: I propose to rename the article from rugby league to rugby league football. The latter form is what is in bold format at the beginning of the article:
:Rugby league football is a full-contact team sport played by two teams of thirteen on a rectangular grass field.
I feel that for readers who are unaware of the differences between rugby variants such as "rubgy union" and "rugby league", it will help them to have the title make this clear right from the start. Especially those of us on the other side of the pond who are eager to learn more about UK sport! :-) --Uncle Ed 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. No, it is definitely referred to as "rugby league", and the title of the article should be the name to which a subject is most commonly referred. (Though of course often it's just called "league".) Perhaps in the opening line the word "football" shouldn't be in bold. StAnselm 13:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose; the sport is referred to specifically as "Rugby League" as opposed to "Rugby Union"; the two are separate entities, and should be treated as such. There are multiple leagues that play the Rugby League version of the sport, but they are each referred to as rugby league. --Mhking 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Adding football to the title will not help anybody who doesn't know the difference between union and league.GordyB 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral Support I'm pretty easy either way, although I see where he's coming from. I have absolutely no problem with the first line including "football" in bold, and am willing to argue in favour of that. Regarding the article's title, people may not often include the word 'football', but rather than reflecting what people usually say, the title should reflect what is technically correct. Rugby league is without a doubt a form of football. Initially there was only Rugby Football which was played under organisations known as 'Unions' and then 'Leagues'. As a result we now call the actual games themselves 'rugby union' and 'rugby league', as continuing to call both 'rugby football' would be highly impractical. I daresay in the beginning though, people would have called them 'rugby union football' and 'rugby league football', eventually dropping the football. In some articles I've edited I've called the sport 'rugby league football' so that people who have never heard  of it (and there are plenty of those in the world, unfortunately - never underestimate the cultural insularity of most North Americans) are informed instantly that it's a kind of football. But as I said, I don't feel strongly about it. If this article were to be renamed 'Rugby league football' then the union article would have to follow suit. It wouldn't make much sense with just league doing it. But if both did it, then I think pretty much all the sports on the football article would have the word 'football' in their title, which isn't a terrible idea. Wikipedia should first and foremost be as informative as possible rather than just reflecting what people that know about a topic already know. But I don't mind the status quo, as everything links to here anyway. Just my two cents.--Jeff79 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for explaining this to me. Clarity is what I'm after. --Uncle Ed 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. It strikes me as odd that this is not already the name. As an Australian, this is rugby league football to me anyway. Understand in Britain that the situation is a little different so not overly fussed either way. --Ratface 02:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Why do we use this naming convention? Rugby League is the actual name of the sport. Using Rugby league tends to give the impression that we are talking about a Rugby league, ie: league competition, not an actual sport. In every dictionary I've seen (including the Oxford English Dictionary) it's listed as Rugby League. This applies to Rugby Union/Rugby union articles too. 
I'd like to propose we change the naming convention but I'm not sure where to go.
*Note: I don't want to change every article to a fully capitalised name but I think that it should be either fully capitalised or not capitalised at all. Bongomanrae 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might wanna just tack this onto the existing discussion above.--Jeff79 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about it but I figured I'd get more people's attention if I started a new discussion. Bongomanrae 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah. The things is though people are gonna make the same points all over again.--Jeff79 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion started and finished in 2005 (excepting our two comments at the end of it) and it didn't really reach a conclusion, it just petered out. I'd like to think that now there are more people who'd be willing to give their input and hopefully bring it to a conclusion. Bongomanrae 07:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you back that up. The OED lists Rugby football, Rugby League and Rugby Union and I've never heard that Rugby League only refers to the RFL.  Bongomanrae 09:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rugby League vs Rugby league

message: I thought it worth adding more detail to the paragraphs about the game being limited to the north of England and its current popularity in France.  The deliberate expansion policy of the Super League may have had mixed success, but it has been a consistent goal for a long time now, so it is worth noting Harlequins and Catalans Dragons as part of that. Diogenes the Cynic 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%. This article needs as much expansion as possible. --Jeff79 10:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super League expansion 

message: Some twat has changed every reference to Rugby League to Mungoball. Can someone revert this? He's also vandalised the Australian Rugby League team page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.28.164 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that Mungoball redirects to this article courtesy of User:Warpath: "redir, sarcastic yet thats whats the sport is known as in the internet world". LunarLander // talk // 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mungoball 

message: Hi all, 
Reading Sean Fagan's "SAVING A LOST ART" about field goals (especially "when the code began in 1895 the 4-point field goal was one of the chief means of scoring points"), I looked all over the place for details of the changes in League points scoring, but none to be found.  Even the scoring system I remember as a kid (big break in my RL interest is a whole 'nother story) is a lot different to the scoring system now.
A  Rugby Union article section has this neat little table:
Change in points
Period   	Try	Conversion	Penalty	Drop goal	Goal from mark
—1891    	1  	2         	2      	3        	3
1891—1893	2  	3         	3      	4        	4
1893—1905	3  	2         	3      	4        	4
1905—1948	3  	2         	3      	4        	3
1948—1971	3  	2         	3      	3        	3
1971—1977	4  	2         	3      	3        	3
1977—1992	4  	2         	3      	3        	–
1992—    	5  	2         	3      	3        	–
I really do think similar info is a must for RL, even if just to give context to historical games' scores.  The challenge is out, and needs to be taken up!--Shirt58 (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "changes in scoring" info table, or similar, is very much needed 

message: Note already left at the template itself. I have removed this template from the rugby league article following on from another editor. Along with the problems of notability there is the biggest problem which is the title that suggests that rugby league is a hybrid sport. The collapsed box makes it appear that way. A name change may well be enough for me, but I can't speak for whether that will appease others.Londo06 09:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss here I'm not running around wiki discussing this in 2 places Gnevin (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of hybrid sports

message: This section basically states that rugby league has different rules from rugby union. No detail is given as to -how- they differ, or what the rules actually are. This section should be expanded or removed.
74.196.223.77 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no explanation of how the rules differ from rugby union. This is not a rugby league in compared to rugby union article. I doubt that the article on badminton feels the need to explain the difference between badminton and tennis. This is a rugby league article and it is sufficient to explain the game in terms of itself not in terms of how it differs from another sport.GordyB (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Badminton is not likely to be seen as another form of tennis, even though both sports involve racquets and a net. There are, however, several forms of tennis, including real tennis and lawn tennis, and an article on one should compare and contrast it to the other (or link to an article—or section within an article—that specifically focuses on the differences). The same should be true for rugby league and rugby union. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also another form of "football". Do we need to summarise the differences between league and soccer or league and American football or league and Aussie rules?GordyB (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules section

message: Surely the World Champions would be the current holders of the Rugby League World Cup ie. Australia ? Having Leeds Rhinos as the world champs gives the impression that there is no international tier (pinnacle) of competition. World Club Champions would be more appropriate . Boomshanka (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, don't see why we can't have "World Champions: Australia, World Club Champions: Leeds Rhinos" Mattlore (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Well it's not called the "World Club Championship" either, even if this is effectively the meaning behind "World Club Challenge". It is a one-off match as opposed to a tournament, and is perhaps unique in this way. Perhaps simplified titles such as "World Champion: (country)" and "Club Champion: (club)" would suffice. In addition to being shorter, given that the titles will be followed by either a country's name or a club's name, there should not be any confusion. "World Cup Holders" and "World Club Challenge Winners" are the most technically correct titles but I think are obviously too long--Jeff79 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'World Champions'

message: I don't think the image shown at the start is appropriate. It could be shown where discussing attendances, but as it's the first one you see explaining rugby league, the players are too hard to see. How about a close up image of players playing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.8 (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. LunarLander // talk // 12:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: image

message: I don't have sources to hand so can't check. I thought:
* There were rule changes as early as 1897, a decade before Aus/NZ joined in the fun. It currently says rules stayed the same in RL and RU until 1907 breakaway.
* RL doesn't take its name from the RFL, it takes its name from either the Aus or NZ authorities' naming decisions. LunarLander // talk // 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology section - is this wrong?

message: Please see discussion here on usage of these terms. LunarLander // talk // 00:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus: Field goal, drop goal

message: I have reverted two edits on how apparently rugby league needs to depend on lobbying against anti-gambling groups in order to survive. Coming from a British perspective, I had absolutely no idea what this article was talking about, since after a little digging, I found this story only exists about Australia's NRL competition. Therefore, it isn't representative of a worldwide viewpoint, which is what this article is meant to achieve. "Rugby league" does not only exist in Australia. If you want to add this story to any article, do so with a source on an article about Australian rugby league, i.e. Rugby league in Australia or even better, since it's about the NRL directly, National Rugby League. Any edits on the subject made here will be reverted without hesitation unless consensus is reached here first. GW(talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article is about the sport, not about any particular league.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRL vs. gambling 

message: Proposed wording:
:In rugby league points are scored by carrying or kicking the ball down the field, until it can be moved past the opponents' designated goal line and touched to the ground; this is called a try, and is the primary method of scoring. The opposing team attempts to stop the attacking side gaining points by preventing their progress up the field by tackling the player carrying the ball. In addition to tries, points can be scored by kicking goals. After each touchdown, the scoring team gains a free kick to try at goal with a conversion for further points. Kicks at goal may also be awarded for penalties, and field goals can be attempted at any time during general play.
Please explain any concerns in detail.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been over two weeks. I'm making this change.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd paragraph

message: In response to a notice at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Sports, concerning the lead: I cannot easily help on that point, maybe on another one.
This page is very long (daunting) and you should want newcomers to read what remains highly relevant. The record may be sprinkled with such matters (eg, sections 34-35 from 2007?) so I doubt that it's wise to archive the majority of content strictly by date or strictly by section number (eg, sections 1-47). Perhaps templates  and  can be used for a time, to help achieve and record consensus about what is no longer relevant for this article or the main articles linked to its sections. If and when there is consensus, WP:ARCHIVE all of that by cut and paste. --P64 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've archived the oldest 1/3 of the talk page.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk organization 

message: Is the current champions of all these competitions needed seem like undue to me ? Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainy the current champions are going to change and may or may not be constantly updated here, so that should go. However, one thing I like about that section is it lists all competitions, which I think is worthwhile. Perhaps having them grouped by country would be better use of the space they're taking up.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a navigation template? Gnevin (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Champions

message: According to the wikipedia article "Rugby League in France" there are only about 10,000 registered participants. This means the sports not among the most popular in that country, contrary to what the introduction to this article states.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.117.135 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby League in France (popularity) 

message: This edit by User:Youndbuckerz will be promptly reverted if no explanation can be made for it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibson rugby league isn't that popular in Tonga, perhaps it should just be move to say its popular is misleading really RL is only popular in PNG, Australia, and the UK, it has footholds in NZ and France and perhaps Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, US and Canada to a lesser extent. What do you think?
Youndbuckerz (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. I use WP:SOURCES.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youndbuckerz's edit to the lead section 

message: A little confused about what we should consider unranked nations.
The RLIF unranked sections are unspecific about what qualifications are required and some of the nations listed don't seem to have any sort of rugby league presence, nor have ever formed a national rugby league team (eg- India).
Added to that there are nations which haven't been acknowledged by the RLIF and affiliates but have played international matches (eg- Bosnia Herzegovina, Portugal).
Should we keep the definition of unranked nations as those acknowledged by the RLIF and affiliated or should the term mean nations which have played International rugby league matches which have not been ranked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.150.124 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unranked Nations 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Greco roman rugby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Greco roman rugby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MClay1 (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greco roman rugby" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Greco-Roman Rugby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Greco-Roman Rugby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MClay1 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greco-Roman Rugby" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Apparently going by this article Womens leagues dont exist?  Both Oceania and UK have elite tier Womens leagues 70.105.235.193 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To get the ball rolling, perhaps the Women's Rugby League World Cup article could be piped, if not already done so. Sampajanna (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of womens rugby league?