Talk:2013 June rugby union tests

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 June 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Lions Flag Icon?[edit]

The Lions flag being used for the 1 June game () is different from all the other games (). Is there a reason for that? Also, is the a ref for the Irish tour of NA? Grande (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Test Status[edit]

Do the Scotland, Ireland and Wales games have test status? Ireland and Wales will missing at least 8 players each. Scotland won't really be affected. 121.217.219.110 (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Nations Cup[edit]

Would it be worthwhile to list the Pacific Nations Cup games in this article? They occur around the same time, and will be full test matches. (124.187.89.77 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think so. From Mid-year rugby union test series, "The mid-year tests consist of European countries traveling abroad to play matches outside of Europe." The Pacific Nations Cup doesn't contain any European nations. Grande (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anonymous user, and the same about the IRB Nations Cup and the IRB Tbilisi Cup. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mid-year rugby union test series only consists of so called "friendly" test matches. The IRB Nations Cup, The IRB Tbilisi Cup and the IRB Pacific Nations Cup are all tournaments and do contain any "friendly matches". Rugby.change (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, should the South-African Quadrangular be removed? Grande (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't Know. I've just added all the IRB Nations, Tbilisi and Pacific Nation cup to section See Also, so that should be fine. Rugby.change (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium mathces[edit]

Does anyone have any refrences for the Belgium matches agianst Zimbabwe and Emerging Springboks. If not should the actually be there? Rugby.change (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RWC Qualifiers?[edit]

Frasinlucian recently added the Canada/USA game taking place in the USA as a summer test. Is that considered part of the test series? Either the other game (in Canada) needs to be added, or the current match needs to be removed. Grande (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be here. Already in 2015 Rugby World Cup – Americas qualification Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to rationalise this article?[edit]

This article seems to have grown out of control. I would like to suggest:

remove the B&I Lions matches as they are a duplicate of 2013 British and Irish Lions tour to Australia. Add a top hat instead
remove the South African Quadrangular Tournament to a separate article for the same reason that the 2013 IRB Pacific Nations Cup etc are separate articles
remove the non-test matches as not germane. This is the 2013 mid-year rugby test series - Saracens v South African Barbarians, Romania A v All Stars etc etc are not test matches. By all means, create 2013 mid-year rugby non-test series if necessary

Thoughts, please. Hamish59 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article has grown out of control. But I personally think that some of the suggestions are not necessary.

Matches should be on article?

All international test

* Welsh Tour

* England tour (plus South America XV match and Barbarians match)

* Ireland Tour

* France Tour (plus mid week match against Auckland Blues)

* South African Quadrangular Tournament (not an official tournament no need for a separate article, just section it)

* ARG v GEO

All British and Irish Lions matches (including club matches but don't include match day line-ups, however match day line-ups should be on the lines article) Only match day line ups should be there are the 3 tests v Australia and match against Barbarians.
Fiji v Classic All Blacks (no match day line-up)
Classic Wallabies v Lions Legends (no match day line-up)
Classic ANZAC's v Lions XV (no match day line-up)
Saracens v SA Barbarians (SA Barbarians are reconised as an international team, like French Barbarians and The Barbarians)
Golden Lions v Samoa (Warm up fixture ahead of SA tournament)
San Francisco Golden Gate RFC v Tonga

Matches that can go?

Bermuda Select v Saracens? (Although the team is of the same aspect as the Barbarians - Look at the squad you will know what I mean)
Romania v All Stars?
England Counties fixtures

What do you think? Rugby.change (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reassurance, a debate has already happened about non-test fixtures on article such as this but with the 2012 end-of-year rugby union tests. Rugby.change (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the 2009 mid-year rugby test series only includes the three B&I Lions test matches. Worth emulating? Hamish59 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I see the club matches as par of the mid year rugby season so I think it's worth having them on this article. However, don't include the match day line-ups on this article as they will probably be on the Lions article. Agreed?Rugby.change (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a thought.

I think the only matches that should be on this article, are matches that are shown either ESPN Scrum (Next 7 days fixture option) and Planet Rugby. Should the Referee be announced then the fixture should be on here. Thus meaning the any matches without referee announcement i.e Romania v All Stars match and the England Counties matches can go. Obviously I'll repeat myself saying that not all the matches, such as the British and Irish Lions v Club matches (Western Force, Queensland Reds, etc), dose not need match day line-up as they will be shown on the 2013 British and Irish Lions tour to Australia article. However match day line-ups for the 3 tests and Barbarian match should feature on this article. What do you think? Rugby.change (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the British and Irish lion tours as well as the 2013 Lions Challenge Series, they have their own article, the rest belong in that article. The quadrangular tournament is possibly a one-off, wont happen next year so no need to make a new article for it. The rest belong there..--Stemoc (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll remove the club matches v British and Irish Lions, but Barbarians v Lions and the 3 test can remain? Rugby.change (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby.change, why have you reverted me? You said Barbarians v Lions and the 3 test can remain yet you have put the "classic" matches back in. Hamish59 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What everyone's opinion of including match day squads for club v national team side. The Lions squad to face Samoa has been named, I would just like to check what people think of including the squad on this article. Last year, the squads between Wales and Brumbies was shown on the article, much like the England v South African Barbarians matches.Rugby.change (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know, Me and Hamish59 (talk) have been discussing weather or not line-ups should be included on club v national sides matches. I think the line-ups should be included for the Auckland Blues v France game, and the Golden Lions v Samoa game. As for the Tonga match, their opponent is not a big team (sounds a bit bias but it's true) and there fore shouldn't really need the line-up. Samoa and France are competing in a tour so I think all their matches should have the line-ups. With regards to the Lions v Samoa match. The Lions sees the fixture as part of their Challenge Series, however, Samoa sees the fixture as a warm-up match ahead of their matches against Scotland and Italy. I also think we should keep consistency from last year. The Wales v Brumbies match last year included the line-ups and to keep consistency we should really add the line-ups this year to Club v National sides. Rugby.change (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

What dose everyone think about the recent edit of the flags getting removed. I personally think the flag by touch judges is much better than having (country name) by the side of the referee. If everyone is in an agreement with what we have now, I'll settle with it. Rugby.change (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what's better, it's about what makes the article MOS-compliant. MOS:ICON says we shouldn't use flags when text will suffice. We might be able to get away with using flags in conjunction with text, but it would be hard to argue that the flags were being used for anything other than decoration. – Pee Jay 08:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With PeeJay on this one. (country name) linking to the appropriate Union is better. Hamish59 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. I shall let the case go. Rugby.change (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer the flags, but that's just from a visual point of view. I didn't read the whole MOS (shame on me), but why is it appropriate for the officials to have their countries' spelled out, while (for example) the Barbarians have a flag beside each player? Grande (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that that is a matter of space, as putting the name of each player's country after their name would look cramped and I hesitate to say a little unsightly. However, I'm not sure why we have flags for the Lions players. They are all representing Great Britain and Ireland, not their own countries, so it is irrelevant where they are from in this context. – Pee Jay 12:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate matches[edit]

OK, there's a few matches on this page that I don't think should be included. Any matches that do not involve an official national team (i.e. Saracens v SA Barbarians and Saracens v Bermuda Select XV) can never have "test" status, so they should not be included in an article about international test matches. – Pee Jay 10:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Saracens v SA Barbarians can be included as the SA Barbarians are seen as an international team (similar to the Barbarians and the French Barbarians). As for the Saracens v Bermuda Select, due to the lack of coverage on the internet on who scored and other information, that match I personally think can go. Rugby.change (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fair enough. But as I have mentioned to you before, perhaps we need to tighten up which matches we actually include in these articles. We seem to be including matches based on our own set of inclusion criteria, but what are the actual rugby stats websites doing? Scrum.com doesn't treat Saracens v SA Barbarians with the same consideration as any of the actual test matches. Hell, they don't even seem to be aware that there was a match between Samoa and the Golden Lions. – Pee Jay 18:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbarians (and their various equivalents) are a bit of a special case really aren't they? Strictly speaking they are a nothing more than an invitational club team, but they've always been seen as a kind of international select XV and certainly on the old-style long tours the final tourist v Baa-Baas game was always akin to an extra test. In this context I'd say put the game in if the various Barbarians are playing a full international side, but not for a game like Sarries v SA Barbarians. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No matches between the B&I Lions and Super 15 teams listed? 82.152.101.82 (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Matches involving club/regional/franchise teams really shouldn't be included. – Pee Jay 12:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally with PeeJay. Keep this article for test matches only, with the exception of the national team v Barbarians games mentioned above. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I think the Barbarian Matches are fine. However, for club teams v international teams should be aloud, just not every bit off detail. I'll remove the line-ups for the Samoa v Golden Lions game, and although I think the Saracens game v SA Barbarians can stay, I will also remove that aswell. Rugby.change (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say "I think they should stay" and expect everyone above who clearly disagrees to go along with it. There is no reliable, third-party source that lists the Saracens v SA Barbarians game among the rest of this summer's international matches, so we shouldn't either. This isn't our own personal stats site, this is an encyclopaedia with quite specific guidelines about how to decide whether or not content should be included. Check out these pages and you will see that Lions v Samoa, San Francisco Golden Gate v Tonga and Fiji v Classic All Blacks are not listed, and I very much doubt that Belgium v England Counties will be included either. Let's delete those as they are basically not worth mentioning. – Pee Jay 03:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any game involving atleast ONE test (playing) nation will and should be listed here even if its a warmup against a club team.......Games involving some random select sides does not warrant inclusion..--Stemoc (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we should not be setting our own inclusion criteria, we should be looking at what reliable sources are doing and follow their lead. It is not up to us to decide what is important and what is not. – Pee Jay 12:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are the one that came up with your OWN criteria, these test have ALWAYS been included, who died and made your president? ESPN doesn't list all games, why do you take them as a source..but if you do, you would realise they have listed many that don't fall under YOUR criteria.....Restore them or I will do it myself and if you revert me, I will report you.....--Stemoc (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The websites you listed you said are reliable. Finding something reliable is of a personal opinion. Rugby.change (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc, you can threaten me all you want, but you are so in the wrong here. Read WP:VERIFY, get your head out of your arse, check your attitude at the door and then talk to me again. – Pee Jay 01:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Tests?[edit]

What does everyone think about including women's tests? I don't know of many, but I do know that France is doing a three-game tour of the USA (http://www.scrumhalfconnection.com/2013/06/04/usa-rugby-womens-eagles-selected-for-three-match-test-series-vs-france/). Grande (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including women's fixtures is fine, just not on this article. Create one similar to the 2012 end-of-year women's rugby union tests. Call something like 2013 women's mid-year rugby test series Rugby.change (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just be careful not to include anything that isn't actually notable, or matches that might be considered tests but actually aren't. I think we're in serious danger of doing that in this article, and it's something you need to be mindful of. – Pee Jay 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2013 mid-year rugby test series for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 mid-year rugby test series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 mid-year rugby test series until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. hippo43 (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously what's wrong with the article. It's the same as any other rugby test article. Rugby.change (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Line-ups[edit]

Right, now that it seems like this article is going to survive the AfD, we might as well work on its structure. First of all, we need to get rid of the line-ups. If people want the specific details of each match, such as what the line-ups were, who the assistant match officials and man of the match, etc. were, they should go to the nation-specific tour articles. There is really no need for the article to include so much detail when we have the sub-articles for that. I would also say that we should create an article for the Quadrangular Tournament involving South Africa, Scotland, Samoa and Italy so that the info for those matches has somewhere to go. Plus, is there an article for Ireland's tour of North America yet? If not, there should be. – Pee Jay 02:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that an article should be created for the Quadrangular Tournament as it is highly likely to be a one off. It's only going ahead because of the Lions and the participation of Scotland this year. Scotland usually doesn't tour on a Lions year, and with the IRB offering more opposition for Tier 2 nations the tournament seemed like a good Idea. However, should I be wrong and a similar tournament takes place next year, then we can back track it and create the article. As for Ireland, I'm not aware of an article yet, but technically with 3 nations playing in that tour, would it be worth creating an article that would have to include all 3 squads. As for the line-ups, I don't believe anything has to change for that. This article is the combining of all the test matches played in May/June/July 2013. The tour articles are there to offer more detail on the tour, not more details on the individual fixtures. The tour articles also offers squads. So personally I think the article should just carry on as normal and yes perhaps create the article for Ireland. Rugby.change (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't think it matters whether the Quadrangular Tournament is a one-off or not. If it's notable, it's notable, and as we all know, notability is not temporary. If it becomes a regular thing, that's great, but if not, we have an article for a one-off competition, that's all. Happens all the time in football, with tournaments like the Tournoi de France and the rest. And on the line-ups issue, yes, the tour articles are there to provide more details about the tours – details such as line-ups for each match. – Pee Jay 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with PeeJay. It is notable, based on the coverage it has had in reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lineups will remain for ALL games except for those that already have their own article such as the lions, the french, the welsh and the English tour to Argentina. Stop playing god here and removing lineups and more importantly, no one here decides which games stay and which should be removed, first and foremost i do not know who changed the title of the article to make it more retarded..It was better off as a 'series' and now we have an idiot who nommed this for deletion removing everything cause he lacks half a brain to understand rugby..As i have said in my previous post, as long as one of the 2 team playing is a TEST TEAM, they DESERVED to be included in the article and it DOES NOT matter who they are playing, this is part of THEIR TOUR, so which IDIOT removed the San Francisco golden gate vs Tonga team and match lineups? The South African Quadrangular Tournament is currently a ONE-OFF so no need to create an article but if in a few weeks if SARU decides to make it OFFICIAL and continue with it next year, then that section of the article can be MOVED to its OWN article, but as of now, its stay with COMPLETE lineups....--Stemoc (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ought to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. Who do you think you are setting your own arbitrary rules about what should be included and what shouldn't? The Tonga v San Francisco and Fiji v Classic All Blacks matches are not included in any third party sources alongside the other matches we have listed here, so they shouldn't be included on the page. Same goes for Samoa v Lions. You need to go chill out and stop getting so bloody angry about this. Stop the personal attacks and get a clue. – Pee Jay 01:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should familiarise yourself with Rugby PJ. Its not a matter of notability, its part of that TEST TEAM's tour and this is what an encyclopaedia does, we list anything that is important to an issue. Lets remove the British and Irish Lions loss over the Brumbies cause the Brumbies is not a TEST team and the lions are NOT a test nation either okay?. The inclusion of lineups is okay when a test team plays a non-test one because that game may not count as a test, but it still counts as a "game on tour" for players in the "test" team, Yes we are very aware of how much coverage media gives to "pacific island" countries.. if people do a search online to find which players played for San Francisco against Tonga, they will get nothing, wikipedia is the ONLY source for these listing sometimes..and as i said on WP:RU, it also builds links which allows for the creation of articles in the future. The criteria i came up with is far more workable in the long run than yours, anyways this should be discussed in WP:RU to get more heads involved, not here...--Stemoc (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a matter of notability, it's a matter of verifiability. Do you have a source that says the Fiji vs Classic All Blacks match has the same status as the France v New Zealand match? I very much doubt it because I have a source that doesn't give Fiji vs Classic All Blacks anywhere near the same status. And as for your rhetoric about Wikipedia being the only place to find line-ups for San Francisco vs Tonga, that is precisely the reason why it should not be included here. Information has to be reported in reliable, third-party sources before it comes here, and if Wikipedia is the only place to find that info, then it clearly fails that test. – Pee Jay 01:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

The article is titled '...tests'. Including non-test games seriously misleads readers and seems ridiculous to me. Rugbychange reverts anything I do to the article, and claims consensus exists through previous discussions that these should be included. I can't see it. Was there ever agreement to include games which are not test matches in an article about test matches, and why?

It was changed to test after your "insistence" in the Deletion request. It was better of as a series as it Incorporated ALL games but no you couldn't have it that way..--Stemoc (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous name of '...test series' was even worse - the article included both non-test games and tests which were not part of any series. In what sense do you think it was better? --hippo43 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I admit the Barbarian matches were not a test, the Barbarians has always been covered on these articles for years, why change now. Barbarian matches are often test matches, it's only against England that it's non-test. The Lions v Samoa, SFGG v Tonga and CONSUR XV v England, like Stemoc said, "as long as one of the 2 teams playing is a TEST TEAM, they DESERVE to be included in the article and it DOES NOT matter who they are playing". However the Lions v Samoa, SFGG v Tonga match can remain without line-ups. Rugby.change (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making any sense. Why should we not include Barbarians non-test games in an article about tests? Because they are not tests.

That they have always been included does not make it right - it just means that other articles like this have also been wrong. Stemoc's view is not supported by any argument. If it's not a test match, neither team is a test team. The France team playing the Blues is not a test team, nor is the Lions team playing the Barbarians, because they are not test matches. It's really simple - matches 'deserve' to be included in an article about test matches if they are tests. --hippo43 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple test for what should be included here. We have an IRB list of matches for which they appointed referees (usually a decent indicator of importance for a match), so we should use it. If you haven't seen it, it's here. You guys are full of your own opinions, and that's great, but Wikipedia isn't a website for what you think should be included, it's for what the encyclopaedia as a whole deems notable as a result of its notability criteria. – Pee Jay 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. An article about these tests was deemed notable enough for inclusion, but it is an article about tests which was discussed. If it's about tests, include tests. If it's an article about 'games for which the IRB appointed refs' it is a different matter altogether. That is not a subject which has received any coverage in reliable sources and would not meet the notability guideline.

Peejay, I'm sure you're not arguing that France vs The Blues is a test because the IRB appointed the match officials? Or that Fiji's centennial test is not a test because the IRB apparently did not appoint officials? What about games for which the IRB only appointed one official? Or two? --hippo43 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that France v Blues is a test, I am arguing that it should be included and that the name of the article needs changing. Clearly this is not a simple issue, but the IRB list is the best we have to go on right now. – Pee Jay 01:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you're saying - that makes sense. I'm sure you can also see that the IRB source (while compelling) is not a secondary source, does not make any explicit judgement about games, does not decide things according to policy here, and omits games which we probably want to include? --hippo43 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, it is a secondary source, but we also need to be careful not to go trawling for umpteen sources just so we can have an article that looks the way we want it to. The article should reflect the sources, not the other way around. The Scrum.com list of international fixtures was looking pretty good, but they scrub that every so often, making a permanent record of which matches they consider(ed) notable very difficult to come by. How about the IRB World Rugby Yearbooks? Would those count? – Pee Jay 01:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be driven by what sources cover, but we can't just assign primacy to one source and say it's authoritative.

The crux is what we decide this article should cover - the title and scope of the article. It's a matter of editorial judgement and making sure the title matches the content. If it's any games involving any national teams on tour, or that just takes place during the summer, we come up against serious problems. If it's test matches, then we go with what reliable sources say is a test match - i.e. when one country awards caps. For me, this is the way we should go. Non-test tour matches then go in tour articles. Barbarians matches can go in the article about the Barbarians.

For example, I think the Fiji-Classic All Blacks game is an abomination, but (according to sources) Fiji are treating it as a test, awarding caps, therefore it is a test. Blues-France, on the other hand, is not a test, so shouldn't be in this article as it is currently titled. What do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would be that it seems any nation can assign test status to a match and award caps if they want to. What we need is a source that collates all the matches of the same status and lists them in such a way that we can use it as a starting point for this article. If a match isn't listed but we think it should be, that's just tough, IMO. Likewise, if the source lists a match we don't think should be listed, that is just as tough. And let's not go trawling for individual sources that say "this match is a Test" or "that match isn't a Test", let's try to find one all-encompassing source that gets us a decent result. – Pee Jay 02:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a nation assigns caps, then it is a test. Reliable sources refer to Fiji's 'centennial test', so, according to policy, it is verifiable. I don't like it, but it is a test. Trying to find one source which nails things down for us is not how wikipedia works, as I understand it. We need to define the scope of this article, reach consensus on what type of games are to be included, then rely on the sources. It will be impossible (and poor scholarship) for us to agree on one or more sources which we treat as authoritative and ignore others. I just don't see a better way of defining the scope of the article better than games reliably sourced as tests. I don't see the logic in including some non-test tour matches but not others. Why include, for example, Blues-France but not Waratahs-Lions? --hippo43 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about the difference between Blues v France and Waratahs v Lions. Based on that assertion, I'd suggest that either the Lions tour matches are added in or the France tour match is taken out. I'm not prepared to make a decision either way, since I don't have a source to make that decision for me. All I want is a reliable source to tell me which matches should and should not be included. Let's go look for one. – Pee Jay 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't look for a source which tells us what to include. We agree on the subject of an article, then any editor can find any number of reliable sources which cover examples of that subject. If a very good reliable source lists some examples of X but is incomplete, and other good sources list some different examples of X, all those sources can and should be used.

What types of games do you think the article should include? Test matches? Tour matches by national teams? Pre-tour matches involving the Barbarians? For me, test matches is clear. It is a simple criterion which can be easily referenced. Lions-Waratahs, Blues-France etc are already covered in individual tour articles. --hippo43 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean more to including the Lions matches on this article (with out line-ups). If we look at the last 7 days results on ESPN, it dose show the Lions non-test matches. Rugby.change (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what hippo43 just said, I'd suppose the Blues match could go considering it's covered on the individual tour article, however, I do believe that the Barbarian matches should stay put, like the obvious inclusion of the test matches.Rugby.change (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pee Jay, and on top of that, both Barbarian matches v ENG and Lions were both covered by third party source v ENG and v Lions.

Of course they were covered by reliable sources. They were not, however, identified as tests by reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at, as per usual. Yes, I am saying that both Barbarians matches should be included, but not merely because they were covered by reliable, third-party sources; they should be included because they were treated by the IRB as important matches in the international window, along with Blues v France. Please don't say you agree with me and then put words in my mouth by going off on a tangent to what I was saying. – Pee Jay 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally like to just keep it to matches between test playing nations, but if you want a secondary source and think that planet rugby is reliable enough why not just include these. AIRcorn (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Planet Rugby is reliable enough. Source looks good to me. What does everyone else think? – Pee Jay 11:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy enough with Planet Rugby myself. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Rugby ignores age-grade and other divisional rugby such as the IRB Tbilisi Cup or the Junior World Championship. If you want a reliable one with stats for playersas well, I prefer ESPNScrum who are probably the only site that keeps a good database of players...--Stemoc (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planet rugby and ESPN are both reliable sources for this kind of data. We can't, however, just choose one source, or a group of sources and say we will only include what they include, and not others. We would effectively be handing over editorial judgment to whoever updates the ESPN website. That's not how verifiability works. We decide what the article is about, and then we can use all reliable sources to reference material. Even if we agreed on a particular source, another editor would quickly want to change the article based on what he found in a different reliable source, and according to policy would be correct. --hippo43 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we shouldn't just hand over editorial control, but equally we shouldn't be coming up with our own rules about what's worth including and what isn't. Different websites have different ideas about what to include and what not to, so we shouldn't be saying to ourselves, "Well, the BBC didn't include a particular match that I think should be included, so let's try to find a source that does include it so we can have what we want." – Pee Jay 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Overview' section[edit]

IMO, this table should be replaced with a short section of prose. Per WP:NPOV, breaking the games down into tours by northern hemisphere countries is not neutral - it is writing from a northern hemisphere perspective only. Sources in Australia, for example, refer to the mid-year tests played by Australia against various teams. Likewise in New Zealand etc. This overview could easily be broken down by host country rather than touring team, or various other ways.

Moreover, it badly confuses tours and test series. The Lions tour will not have a result; the test series between the Lions and Australia will. The Lions tour includes more than 3 games. An Ireland tour including tests against 2 different countries was not a test series, and did not have a result or a victor. 'North America' could not have won the non-existent series, as North America is not a team. (Just as in 2008, Australasia did not beat Ireland.)

Also, Rugbychange insists on including 2-0 as the result of the NZ-France series, when the third test has not yet been played. 2-0 is not the result. Please just bin this mess and let us write up something simple to replace it.

I understand what you mean about the Ireland situation and thus I have removed the tour from the table. I have reworded the other tours to say test series, but I have no doubt that you will reword them further. As for the format of the table, nothing is wrong with it. As for the 2-0 on New Zealand and France tour, if you had been following the article over the last 3 weeks or so, I have updated the table as each test has been played. Rugby.change (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, Rugby.change. You should not imply that the result of the series is 2-0 when it hasn't finished yet. If a series hasn't finished, don't add a result, at least not without making it plain that the series is still in progress, perhaps through the use of italics or a key. – Pee Jay 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby.change, I understand why you have updated the result of the France-NZ series, but you clearly don't understand what 'result' means.

Making the changes you have just made has made the table even less useful, as it now excludes tests which were not part of a series. Why are you clinging desperately to the idea of a table when it clearly doesn't work?

Please also address the NPOV problem I identified. --hippo43 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly with hippo regarding the result section (although I can't find it so it might be changed now). We can't have incorrect information in an encyclopaedia and incomplete information in this case is the same as incorrect. AIRcorn (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Week 1' etc[edit]

This labelling is seriously misleading - it creates the impression for an uninformed reader that there is some sort of official timetable. This is a particular problem as the real IRB window is only three weekends. IMO, we don't need to create links in this list, but if we do, let's just use dates or weekend dates. --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The game happens in different stages, the end of the week games (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) whichis usually against an international team or a midweek game (Tuesday and Wednesday) which is usually against a club team so its best to list them in "WEEKS" instead of just listing them all together making the article illegible.--Stemoc (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no mid-week tests taking place, and you haven't addressed the problems with labelling the weeks like this. If you want to separate them chronologically use dates. Use 'June 1-7', for example. --hippo43 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one thing I can really say about this, and that's for you to grow up. The week1 week2, etc sections are there so that readers can naviagate through ther article easier. I had added infividual section to each match (such as Welsh test Series: Japan v Wales test 1), but they consistently get removed so I gave up. Rugby.change (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a civil reply. Please address the problems I identified with the labels as they are, and explain any objections you have to using real, actual, not-made-up dates. --hippo43 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would organise it by series. The problem with having the weekly headings is that I can't find what I am looking for easily from the table of contents. AIRcorn (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One option would be instead of using "Week 2", we use "June 1-7" and then "June 8-14" for the next one...its an option, though someone along the way would say, why not call it "Week 1" or "Week 2"? ..back to the drawing boards..Calling it rounds is also out of the question.--Stemoc (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for the series option myself, if I've come here looking to find the details of the NZ v France series for example, I can get to it quite easily from the table of contents if it sits in its own section. The drawback here is where to place one-off matches - maybe an "other matches" section? --Bcp67 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibilities seem most obvious to me - sort them by date (using weekend or week date ranges, whatever) or by home team. We have to make the article useful to a general audience of readers, not what we find most convenient for ourselves. Listing by series, as Bcp67 said, causes problems with one-off games etc. Given that reliable sources (prose, rather than just stats) tend to cover mid-year tests from a particular country's POV, and do not cover them all as a related whole, I'm inclined towards listing them by home team. The New Zealand media, for example, will cover the All Blacks' mid-year tests together, though they may be playing more than one country, and will not significantly cover other countries' tests in the same boat. So all tests played in New Zealand would be listed together, and all tests played in Australia etc...

You can always have a header with a just a single test. It will most likely depend on how many are included. AIRcorn (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not, I think dates would be fine as well. --hippo43 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by nation seems daft to me. If people want to see this summer's fixtures grouped by nation, they can look at the individual tour articles. It is more useful to sort by date and then break that down into suitable sections, preferably with intervals of about a week. The title of those sections should probably have actual dates in though. – Pee Jay 14:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is useful to sort by date for the readers. Most people will be looking to see how certain tours went, not who won on a certain day. This should be an overview article anyway and link to the tour articles as a main. AIRcorn (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Match reports - external links[edit]

If editors are adding links to reports on ESPN's website or wherever, can we please link to the actual match reports, rather than stats. Clicking on a link that says 'Report' and landing on a page that offers basicaly the same stats as here is daft, then you have to click on another link to actually get the report. --hippo43 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've updated the links. Rugby.change (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement[edit]

Are we in an agreement on the article that stands at (Rugby.change 01:25 21 June 2013). I'm happy with it, are you? Rugby.change (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Obviously. --hippo43 (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, this is ridiculous. You can't just present an alternative and ask if people agree with it. It may well be that the alternative you present is the least worst one we've had so far (I'm not saying it is, this is just hypothetical), but that does not make it the best. There are still many issues to iron out with this god-forsaken article, no thanks to you and your insistence on reaching an ill-informed consensus as quickly as possible. Not all matches have the same standing, meaning not all matches should be listed with line-ups, and some matches shouldn't be listed at all. Thank goodness this isn't a professional publication and you're not the editor because I'd have handed in my resignation a long time ago based on how badly you run things. And the worst thing is, you seem to think you're in charge; you're always trying to force a consensus before the discussion has reached a conclusion. Let things run their course and stop trying to act like Wikipedia's all-knowing, where-I-lead-ye-shall-follow captain. – Pee Jay 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --hippo43 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

those 2 above are idiots that have been banned multiple times and thus their comments are to me useless...no we stick to the ORIGINAL idea of inclusion...--Stemoc (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc, go away and take your inane ramblings with you. You clearly have no idea about how Wikipedia works, and I would thank you to keep your equally ill-informed ideas to yourself. Your "original idea of inclusion" is preposterous and does not conform to any Wikipedia guidelines. In fact, the only purpose your inclusion guidelines seem to serve is that of your own self-interests of including the things you want to include. Forgive me for stating the obvious since none of us get paid for this, but it really is like fucking amateur hour in here. – Pee Jay 01:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^That. --hippo43 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self interests? this is an ENCLYOPEDIA , not your personal "Blog of things you like", we include EVERYTHING that is NOTABLE and DEMANDS INCLUSION. Its good your partnered up with Hippo who knows nothing of rugby cause thats where you both belong. The way it was before the deletion was PERFECT, nothing needed to be changed, everything was SOURCED, and VERIFIED and it followed Wikipedia Rugby union guidelines for inclusion. We have been following this pattern for years and now we have someone who knows crap all about rugby dictating to us what needs to be included and what should be removed and another who thinks he knows it all can't follow simple policies in terms of "inclusion". Again, anything that is SOURCED and VERIFIED and is related to the ANY test teams "tour" will and SHOULD be included....--Stemoc (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc, I made my first edit to a rugby article in 2006, FOUR YEARS before you started editing here. --hippo43 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea when I made my first edit to a rugby article, but it must have been around then, if not before. Plus I am a published rugby journalist, so put that in your pipe and smoke it, Stemoc. Just because something has been done a certain way for years does not make that way correct, it just means it took far too long for it to be put right. So here we are, putting things right. – Pee Jay 01:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not broken, it has always been right and believe it or not has been working PERFECTLY for the last 7 years. A published rugby journalist eh? then why not use your real name if you are "famous". I can claim to be Will Carling or David Campese, both are published journalists...anyways it doesn't matter when you made your first edit....I have been editing here since 2005 anonymously (IP) and only created an account so that I could add articles...--Stemoc (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not perfect, and certainly not just because you say so. Furthermore, we haven't had this type of article for the last seven years, certainly not in the shambles of a state we find this one in now. And by the way, I never said I was famous. Grow up. – Pee Jay 02:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't half rant on don't you Pee Jay. You say that some of the matches shouldn't be listed, then list the ones that should be listed on here. As far as I was aware, the matches that were to be on the article, were matches that were on the IRB document. Document If you actually compated the article and the document, you'd see that all the matches that are on the document are on the article, excluding Lions v Super rugby teams,. There are no extra matches on there, so what matches actually need to go. And please explain what you are babbling on about with the line-ups. What is the problem with them? Rugby.change (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said anything needs to be removed from the article as it stands (my edit from 02:41 this morning). I am arguing that certain matches should not be included, sure, but that's it. – Pee Jay 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that, the current edit Pee Jay 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) is what we are going with? I'm with you on this one on some of the matches.[reply]

Matches that should NOT be there that used to be there

Lions v Samoa
SFGG v Tonga

With regards to the Fiji v Classic All Blacks, I agree with not being on the article, however, due to it's test status, I suppose it could briefly be shown WITHOUT line-ups? Rugby.change (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that my edit is perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. At least now the article is following a decent source with regard to which matches should be included. Show me a reliable source that lists the Fiji vs Classic All Blacks match on the same page as the rest of the matches and we might have a starting point, but yet again, this is not about what we think should or should not be included, it's about what the sources say. – Pee Jay 02:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the Fiji match. So in your opinion, what needs to be done to the article? Rugby.change (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, nothing needs to change. We have a source that lists a group of matches as having the same status and we have accurately reflected that source in the article. By all means try to find a better, more comprehensive list of this summer's internationals, but I don't think anything can be more authoritative than the IRB's list of match official appointments. – Pee Jay 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classic All Blacks is a recognised team just like the Barbarians F.C. which has been competing since 2007. Its is "recognised" by NZRU and its not a random collection of some players and actually had a 100% winning record until their loss to Fiji. The inclusion of the team lineups was for people to find out who played in that game cause next time they play, there will be a completely different Classic All Blacks...in reference to the SFGG v Tonga, this may not be a "test" but it was one of the games played by Tonga on their "TOUR" to USA. Our job is to include all those games played by 'test' teams. Had Tonga played in that game as "Tonga A" instead of Tonga", it may not be included but since Tonga fielded its MAIN team and not an A-team, it should be included, Same for Samoa against the Golden Lions...--Stemoc (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Non-test tour matches are often billed as Country X vs Club Y, it doesn't make them a full national team, and it doesn't make the game an international match. Test matches are played by test teams, by definition. Teams who play club sides are not playing test matches, so are not test teams. 'A' national teams, or equivalent, usually play against other 'A' teams, or against lower-ranked full national teams. 'A' national teams rarely, if ever, play club games. --hippo43 (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's a long shot, but I thing the best way to see if the 3 matches should be covered is to see what the referee is wearing on the match day. If the referee is wearing the official IRB strip then we can talk. If not we'll carry on like we are. Rugby.change (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said this is a long shot. I looked up these 3 matches on Youtube, and I can confirm that the Fiji match had an official IRB referee. The referee was wearing the IRB strip uniform. The Samoa match had the referee in the Standard South African currie uniform and the Tonga math had the referee in bright Yellow. From this, I definatly think the Samoa and Tonga match should be ignored, but personally the Fiji v Classic All Blacks match is up for debate. Rugby.change (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's a valid measure for whether a match should be included. If a referee is IRB accredited, they will most likely own a kit that has an IRB logo on it to prove their qualifications. Similarly, in the Premier League, Howard Webb often wears a kit with the FIFA logo on it, but that does not mean he was appointed for the match by FIFA or that a Premier League match should be included in a list of international matches. – Pee Jay 02:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby.change, that shows how little you understand policies. In the case of Fiji's centennial test, your belief is correct - reliable sources state that it is a test, so it is a test. --hippo43 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude read what we've been discussing. I have been arguing the case to keep, not to delete the match. Rugby.change (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote again. Your Youtube approach to research is ridiculous and shows that you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but your opinion on this game is actually correct, just for a different reason. --hippo43 (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did say it was a long shot if you aloud this. Rugby.change (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRB actually doesn't allow referees to wear their official uniforms for games which they are not "sanctioning". Usually when a ref wears the jersey of the rugby union body he belongs to if he officiates in a "non-official" game. I wouldn't know, i haven't seen the lions-samoa and tonga -SFGG games. The referee for the Fiji-classics match was officially appointed by the IRB, not by Fiji and thats why the ref fiji chose was made the fourth official (sometimes called the reserve referee) instead and the game was refereed by a Samoan referee...--Stemoc (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reads a lot like original research. Whether the IRB appointed a match official is not the real question here. --hippo43 (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought we'd came to an agreement on the Fiji match situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but due to it's test status, it was to remain.Rugby.change (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should, on the basis that this article should only include tests, in line with its title. Peejay disagrees. Until we get broader agreement on the scope of the article, we shouldn't assume consensus on this. --hippo43 (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd thought we'd came to an agreement on the Fiji match situation." < we did, but PJ thinks otherwise and yes its WP:OR but i'm not using that as a "source" am i? and yes 3 people does not make a consensus..i have posted this on WP:RU so hoping to get a few clean heads to join the discussion, especially Bob and Shudde who have been pioneers in every much all the rugby related articles on wikipedia...--Stemoc (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not specifically against the Fiji match being included. I'm against coming up with our own inclusion criteria based on our own opinions of what should be included. As I said before, any nation seems to be able to apply Test status to their own matches, so if Tonga decided to apply Test status to their match against San Francisco (and we could prove it), it would seem that you guys would want to include it because this article is a list of Tests played this summer. My problem with that is that San Francisco Golden Gate XV is a joke of a team and that it is ridiculous to apportion the same status to that match as to a game between Wales and Japan or Ireland and the USA. That is why I'm looking for a reliable, third-party source to provide a comprehensive list of which matches they think should be included, such as the BBC's international fixtures and results pages. The only fixtures the BBC pages don't cover are Fiji v Classic All Blacks and Argentina v Georgia, plus there is no mention of the Quadrangular Tournament, so maybe it's not the final page we should use as our source, but at least it's a start. – Pee Jay 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of a test team giving out caps for a game against a club team? I surely haven't..your reasoning for removal makes no sense. San Francisco Golden Gate RFC is a LEGIT club competing in one of USA's highest club competition and is not a "Random Select XV". We have added many random select teams in the past as long as they were playing a "TEST NATION" it would have been included and I still stand by that criteria. If a team plays 3 games on tour and one of those games is a mid-week game against a club team, it will be mentioned and linked because its part of their build up to their last game which may be a test game and part of that teams ITINERARY. Like it or not, you both are wrong in trying to remove this information. We are building an encyclopaedia which is suppose to provide All information for an event and not pick some and leave the others. It may be OK not to add a team lineup but to completely remove that game is IDIOTIC...If we go by your idea then we should remove the France- Blues game as well and all the games the British and Irish lions played against NON-TEST teams including the one against the Combined New South Wales-Queensland Country which doesn't actually exists as a team but are a bunch of random selects XV, atleast the SFGG team was an ACTUAL team that played in an actual competition....--Stemoc (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should remove the France v Blues game. It's not an international fixture, it's part of France's tour, for which we already have a separate article. I really don't understand why you are arguing to include the San Francisco Golden Gate match when this article's title specifically states that the page is about Test matches. You and I both acknowledge that no caps were given for the Tonga v San Francisco Golden Gate match, therefore it was not a test match and should not be included. Just because it is part of a team's tour does not mean it is worth mentioning on this page. Not all matches have the same standing, and I find it laughable that you think that Tonga v San Francisco Golden Gate should have the same status as Ireland v Canada. – Pee Jay 11:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible[edit]

Does anyone object if I make each of these games collapsible, such that you can look at the page and just see the scores without all the noise of lineups and substitution, &c (information that will still be readily available)?My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the method by which you would make them collapsible. If done wrong, I might have some objections. – Pee Jay 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as it is. There really is no need to make the matches collapsible, everything is fine as it is. Rugby.change (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I mean, the style of he article doesn't suit collapsible rugbybox template. For club tournaments like the Pro 12 and Aviva premiership nobody really cares about what the line-ups are. As for fully test matches, more people then don't wants to see the line-ups. Editors that do include the line-up are not breaking any of the regulations in place on Wikipedia, so there is no point in having the collapsible template in place. Rugby.change (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that regulations have been broken, nor that the information should not be included. I just think the page would look far better if it were possible to see all of the matches and scores together without having to wade through so much more information. I don't know if the format makes it feasible, but it would certainly be an improvement.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reasonable suggestion to me to be able to see the scores together, and then be able to open up the details a game which a reader might have a particular interest in. Worked OK for the article on the recent Lions tour. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It keeps the most important information visible, and you can always get more details by clicking Expand. Grande (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I worked on it on my sandbox, User:My_Dinner_With_Andre_The_Giant/sandbox. Take a look and share your thoughts here. If people agree that it's an improvement, it can be transferred wholesale to the actual page, which has had no changes since I got started. My thoughts:

It makes the whole page look much better, and the results are much easier to find without wading through a ton of less important information.
All of that less important (but still valuable) information is preserved and is easily accessible.
I don't love that each match has two bits of collapsed information. I don't know if it is possible to combine them without considerably changing the format of each section, something I don't quite want to wade into just yet.
Previously, it made sense that various notes (such as a match being Fiji's centenary or a record attendance for the US) were at the very bottom. Here, I don't think it looks quite right down there (it looks as if it could apply to the match below instead of the match above at a quick glance), and may actually be better if placed between the two collapsed sections.
ETA: I have put the "Notes" section for each of the Week 4 matches between the two collapsible sections so that there is a basis for comparison.
A bit off topic, but I also don't see the point of saying that this was England's first test series win on Argentine soil since 1981. While it's true, it implies a record of futility that doesn't exist. This was only England's second test series on Argentine soil since 1981. My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks much cleaner. Hamish59 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I do agree it looks much neater, I think that just the line-ups should be collapsible not the rugbybox template, and the team could be without the border around it, see my sandbox to see what I suggest. User:Rugby.change/sandbox. Rugby.change (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment continued, the reason I say not to have the rugbybox template collapsed, is because otherwise there's just persistence Show by each match and for some readers may get confused on which one is to show scorers or team details.Rugby.change (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer Rugby.change's version. It looks a bit cleaner, provides more info by default, and still doesn't look cluttered like the current version does. Grande (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, having to click in two places to expand each match doesn't really work, and this version is still a big improvement over what is currently on the page. I think the ideal would be to include the scoring information and the lineup information in a single drop-down, which would still preserve the cleaner, scores-only, look. I've fiddled around with it for a few minutes, but haven't figured it out yet. Until, or unless, I or someone else can get that done, I would suggest that Rugby.change copy the version on his sandbox wholesale into the article.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go ahead and edit the article, I'd like to confirm the go ahead with the new format. Rugby.change (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you're cool with it. Grande and I like your version. Hamish9 and BCP67 approve of the change in principle, even if they haven't weighed in on your specific version, so I'd assume they're good. PeeJay2K3 is the only person who has been involved in this discussion who hasn't given approval, but I think his potential objection ("If done wrong...") is fairly moot as this wasn't really done wrong. (Sorry if I'm putting words in people's mouths.) My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the Rugby.change version too. Worth waiting to see what PeeJay thinks? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I'm happy with Rugby.change's version. Hamish59 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's the only person who has participated in the discussion who has yet to give his approval. He hasn't really kept up with the discussion, and it's been about a week, so I say let's just go for it.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Go for it. – Pee Jay 01:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2014 mid-year rugby union tests which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2013 mid-year rugby union internationals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 mid-year rugby union internationals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]