Talk:Rugby union positions

Archives

Rugby union positions received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maxxiime.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled][edit]

Section headers have changed. They can be linked through the position articles (e.g.[[position (rugby union)|preferred position name]]). The positions are Fullback, Wing, Centre, Fly-half, Scrum-half, Prop, Lock, Flanker and Number eight. AIRcorn (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section names (again)[edit]

Just wanted to mention out that I changed the Wing section name from "14. and 11. Wing" to "14. & 11. Wing" to make it match the convention used in the other section. I have fixed all of the anchor breakage that this causes with help from AWB, and also have fixed hundreds of broken anchors to other sections. The section names all look good to me now, and I think the large majority of links to the page now point to the correct anchor, so they probably shouldn't need to be changed again. Winston365 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone back through and fixed every broken anchor link to this article. There are still a handful of ambiguous ones, where the anchor points somewhere different than the text of the link, but I don't think there are any left on wikipedia that point to a section that doesn't exist. I'll try and work on the ambiguous ones when I get a chance. Winston365 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Languages[edit]

Do we need the table with the positions in other languages? It seems unnecessary to include them in the English Wikipedia. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find them quite interesting, especially the Afrikaans ones. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed by another editor not long after I commented here [1]. It was getting a bit out of hand with Georgian (ბურჯი) being the latest addition. AIRcorn (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section Names (yet again)[edit]

I was wondering if there would be any objections to changing the section headings by removing the numbers and changing "&" to "and". Personally I think it would tidy up the article, especially the table of contents. If important the numbers could be mentioned early on in each section. Anchor templates would be used to hold all the redirects until they can be replaced. AIRcorn (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it could be useful to sort out the position templates at the same time. A deletion discussion a year ago was closed as depreciate. A bot could be organised to substitute these template at the same time as fixing the redirects. AIRcorn (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of directing each use to Fullback (rugby union), Wing (rugby union), Flanker (rugby union), Number eight (rugby union) etc. The ones that don't have an article contain a redirect straight to the correct section in this article. That way if an individual article is created for a position the links are already in place, and until then someone will still find there way here. AIRcorn (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, replace the templates with redirects. The templates were created at a time when redirects were not able to redirect to specific sections of an article but only to the lead paragraph of an article. I would use a bot though, as there must be thousands of articles that use the templates. --Bob247 (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead.GordyB (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, request lodged here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be worth removing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union#Positional templates section. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd: These templates have been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Rugby_union_positional_templates. --Bob247 (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Utility Backs[edit]

The other sections use Hall of Famers, which while not perfect at least prevents the indiscriminate addition of players. Maybe adding something like . Of the currently mentioned players that would just leave, Austin Healy (SH, W, FH, FB), Mike Catt (FB, FH, W, C), and Frans Steyn (W, FB, C and FH). Maybe to flesh it out we could also include Danie Craven (12 SH, 1 C, 2 FH, 1 Number 8), Mike Gibson (28 FH, 48 C, 4 W), Tim Horan (62 C, 2 W, 9 FH), and Phil Bennet (1 W, 1 C, 32 FH) from the Hall of Fame. It should concentrate on their main position, but mention that they have played others. Not sure if Bennet should be included either way as the Wing and Centre games were his first two starts and the rest were at Fly-half. AIRcorn (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Back Three' vs 'Three-quarters.[edit]

Maybe it is just where I live, but I've never heard the centers and wing referred to as 'three-quarter' backs. IMO it is more common to group the two wings and fullback together as the 'Back three'. Thoughts? (M12435687 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think it is probably just that you haven't heard of it, because the centres and wingers are regularly referred to as the three-quarter backs. – Pee Jay 09:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the "loosehead is strongest of the props" comment[edit]

I have played loosehead prop as well as hooker (when the specialists were insufficient). I have sometimes played tighthead and I disagree that loosehead props are stronger than tighthead props. LPs push with one shoulder only and are likely to run before the TPs, which are often left captive in the scrum while it detangles itself, along with the hookers. The pushing effort and the force of the push on both sides of the body is phenomenal, when you push in the TP position. It is a very dangerous position to play. I simply did not play tighthead because I was not strong enough, and rather a bit more of a runner. This is a dubious comment and I believe it should be removed. --156.42.184.102 (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles[edit]

I was originally planning on creating individual articles for each position, similar to how the flanker section is presented at the moment. I propose to copy each one over as is and then remove the players names from this article (they will still exist in a notable players section in the other articles). I am also unsure of the value of naming the players in the picture. I tried to chose pictures that represented the position the best and names were not really a factor. This article is more about the positions, not the players (although a stronger case could be made in the individual position articles). AIRcorn (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame inductees rule etc[edit]

There is a 'rule' in force through comments within the text which request that editors should not add an notable names unless those have already been inducted into either of the 2 Halls of Fame. This means that players such as O'Driscoll - widely recognised as one of the best ever - who are still playing don't get included, which seems daft. Surely he should be listed in the centres section? Shouldn't he? Atlas-maker (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

teammates[edit]

The word "teammates" is not incorrect. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]^[4]

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Position name errors and northern bias[edit]

In the lead paragraph we read: The players outside the scrum are called "the backs" ... Early names, such as "three-quarters" (for all the backs)...

This is at variance with definitions and usage of three-quarters in the rest of the article as it implies that the half-backs are included in the three-quarters. I propose to edit it.

A more general issue in the article is its bias towards Northern Hemisphere nomenclature: Early names... are still used by most people (i.e. the Northern Hemisphere)...

Leaving aside the factual basis of most people it seems to be attempting to justify relegating southern hemisphere nomenclature to subsidiary status. The effect is to make the whole article somewhat incomprehensible, or at least very confusing, to southern hemisphere readers. I propose to edit the article so that the northern and southern hemisphere names are given equal status. After all, all four semifinalist in the 2015 RWC were the latter. I will wait a while for any comments before doing this. Mike Spathaky (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rugby union positions. 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) 17:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rugby union positions. 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) 13:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rugby union positions. 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) 09:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

exclusively male-centred article[edit]

Reading this article makes me think that only men play rugby. Every example of notable players and all the photographs are of men. Would it be possible to have some balance with exemplars from the women's game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:4305:B001:4DAA:8C8E:8255:8DA4 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of any women who play rugby, be my guest. Most of them aren't particularly notable. – Pee Jay 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/teammate

[2] ttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/teammate

[3] ttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/teammates

[4] ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teammate

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]