Talk:England national rugby union team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	England national rugby union team is part of WikiProject Rugby union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Rugby union. If you would like to participate, you can edit England national rugby union team, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and view a list of open tasks
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	To-do list for England national rugby union team:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Add references History First match 1870-1890 1900-1930 1940-1979 1980-1999 2000-2003 Post 2003 2007 World Cup Twickenham Strip Records and statistics Players Coaches Delist records section Split history section into separate article, then summarise for this article. (do this once it's fully referenced) Wiki-link positions in current squad Delist notable players Delist coaches and captains Expand overall, and World Cup records sections Create Six Nations record section Add images to history section

Contents 1 Template 2 Famous players 3 Current players 4 Notable Players 5 History section 6 Headings etc 7 Infobox 8 To do list 9 Overall results 10 fr:Équipe d'Angleterre de rugby à XV / England national rugby union team 10.1 Top try scorer 11 History section

[edit] Template

SUPPORT THE COUNTRY!

Put the template {{User:Djr_xi/User england rugby}} on your user page! Deano (Talk) 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous players

Can we have some consenus on the "Famous players" issue? Personally I believe that previous entries have been 'top heavy' towards modern day players and we need to agree on which players from the 'modern period' have really influenced England as a team. In fact, I would suggest that "Famous players" is a misnomer and we should retitle it "Influencial players". What do you think?

RichardLowther 12:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard I would prefer that the text refers to famous players and places them in context rather than we include a long list. With lists you always get into a bind over criteria for inclusion and sometimes into rather silly edit wars! PaddyBriggs 18:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Paddy, I agree about including them in context within the article rather than at the end (that is what I have done with the Wakefield RFC page) but the problem I have to some extent, is to define Famous. If a player becames an England player does that make him Famous? Some would say so. We could get to the 'silly' situation where we end up with name checking a high percentage of players on those grounds (probably from the modern era because peoples interest/attention spans only go so far). That is why I suggested the 'Influencial' aspect, in the hope that we could focus more on players that have done something *extra* for England (and maybe the game in general) than just worn the white shirt.

RichardLowther 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be some list of players that were noteable in some way. I agree that 'famous' is perhaps not an ideal word as few rugby players are geniunely famous outside their sport. I think 'noteable' is better than 'influential'.

I don't think there is any objective way of doing this. If you simply list players that were capped x number of times then you are biasing the list in favour of more modern times when more games are played. I think we'll just have to argue who was or was not important on a case by case basis.

The list is biased post-war but you are free to add in pre-war players that you can think of. The list is there to be edited.GordyB 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If nobody posts again then I will add the list back in. While Paddy may have a point about a list in context. Until someone writes this there is no point not having a at least a list.GordyB 12:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Gordy, I have been trying to compile a list and reasons for inclusions on such and ensure that it is balanced across the ages. Harder than I thought, but it might give us a starting point for discussion. I will post on here when I finish it.

RichardLowther 15:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy to await Richard's list. But in principle I think that any list is likely to be problematic. For example have you heard of a scrum half called "J.Spencer", He played once in 1966 (I was there). He was incredibly famous, for about 15 minutes (match programme says that he "spends evenings weaving fashion fabrics on a hand-loom"...and..."lives in a converted air-raid shelter" (I kid you not!). Good story lost in the mists of time! PaddyBriggs 16:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Paddy - Is that the same J Spencer that played for Headingley and is now a RFU 'committee' man? I was hoping to refer to a book on England internationals to aide me in my list but I must have loaned it out. This means that it taking me longer than I hoped to compile the list. RichardLowther 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for the list then.GordyB 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the list back in as I feel that it is better that there is something even if it is imperfect than there is nothing. When the new list / section is finished then by all means replace it.GordyB 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When the 6 nations is over I plan to change the current players section back to this. I'm just putting it here for safe keeping.GordyB 13:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Henry Monelle - Weston-super-Mare as an Elite player - I suspect some one is pulling someone's plonker! Richard Lowther NLI.82.38.211.251 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops didn't see that. The red lined Bristol players are also news to me but rather more plausable.GordyB 02:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current players

The 2005/06 elite squad is:

Stuart Abbott - Wasps Iain Balshaw - Leeds Tykes Olly Barkley - Bath Andy Beattie - Bath Duncan Bell - Bath Steve Borthwick - Bath George Chuter - Leicester Tigers Ben Cohen - Northampton Saints Martin Corry - Leicester Tigers Mark Cueto - Sale Sharks Matt Dawson - Wasps Louis Deacon - Leicester Tigers Harry Ellis - Leicester Tigers Andy Farrell - Saracens James Forrester - Gloucester Perry Freshwater - Perpignan Mark van Gisbergen - Wasps Andy Gomarsall - Worcester Will Greenwood - NEC Harlequins Danny Grewcock - Bath Andy Hazell - Gloucester Charlie Hodgson - Sale Sharks Chris Jones - Sale Sharks Ben Kay - Leicester Tigers Josh Lewsey - Wasps Lee Mears - Bath

Lewis Moody - Leicester Tigers Jamie Noon - Newcastle Falcons Tom Palmer - Leeds Tykes Phillip Peat - Bristol Rugby Luke Porter - Bristol Rugby Peter Richards - Gloucester Jason Robinson - Sale Sharks Graham Rowntree - Leicester Tigers Paul Sackey - Wasps Simon Shaw - London Wasps Andrew Sheridan - Sale Sharks James Simpson-Daniel - Gloucester Ollie Smith - Leicester Tigers Matt Stevens - Bath Mathew Tait - Newcastle Falcons Steve Thompson - Northampton Saints Mike Tindall - Gloucester Andy Titterrell - Sale Sharks Phil Vickery - Gloucester Tom Varndell - Leicester Tigers Tom Voyce - Wasps Harry Warman - Bristol Rugby Julian White - Leicester Tigers Jonny Wilkinson - Newcastle Falcons Joe Worsley - Wasps

</nowiki>

[edit] Notable Players

Although there has been a lot of discussion on 'famous players', I have removed all those on the notable list without a wiki article. I'm not going to argue what the criteria should be to be included on the list apart from that they need an article of reasonable quality. Any players who have acceptable articles created about them can be added to the list once thats done. - Shudda ^talk 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They aren't likely to get articles written on them without a link on a major page. I created the list because the previous one was stated to be biased to post-WW2 players. Wikipedia suffers from a huge bias towards what is current with minor club players having articles but major figures not getting a mention.GordyB 05:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. Having a red-link is not criteria for not being a notable player. I very much agree with Gordy as well, without a link(s) from a major article, the player will have less of a chance of being created, and then if it is created, it gets that no links to this article template slappedd on it. I must say, I try to create as many footballer pages as is reasonable, including English players, but in all honesty, I would not know where to start without these notable player lists, which somewhat act as a guide for articles that need creating. I also agree with Gordy in that there is a huge bias towards modern players, there are some clubs/franchises that almost have their whole squad created, whereas there are numerous international captains that do not have articles.Cvene64 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that if a player is considered notable then they would have an article about them. Removing them from the list until there is an article on them is great motivation for people to create them. However someone unfamiliar with Englands RU team would probably find it interesting that players considered notable don't even have a short article on wikipedia. - 132.181.172.129 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not everybody knows how to create an article that isn't red-linked and having the link will act as a suggestion to create an article. If nobody else creates them then eventually I will do so but I have a list of things that I consider more urgent.GordyB 08:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That unsigned post was me above, I hate when i get automatically signed out of wikipedia! I think a better idea would be to move the red-linked names to the talk page until articles are written on them. Those that are contributing to this page and probably in the best position to create quality articles on those players anyway. - Shudda ^talk 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It still means a lower likelyhood of the pages being created. I don't see the problem with red links, there are lots of articles with red links. In any case the idea of a list of significant players shouldn't be dependent on there being an article, Carston Catcheside was a significant figure before I created an article on him yesterday.GordyB 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Red links are not actually a good look. If people want to create the article then they will probably do so regardless of whether their name is in this article. I'd like to know where someone was supposed to get the information for an article on one of those players if they only knew of them because of a red-linked name? There are many many notable players that could be included in the list, and as subjective as the list is it seems making the primary criteria for inclusion that an article (preferably of reasonable quality) on them exists is a fair one. If you looks at the All Blacks and Australia national rugby union team articles the list of notable players omits (bar 1 in the aussie article) players without articles. - Shudda ^talk 04:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no requirement for articles not to have red links and as for info, it is perfectly simple to make a stub armed only with google. I've created lots of articles on players I've never heard of see Adrian Lungu.GordyB 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

The history section here is very large. It needs to be referenced for sure, but I was thinking it be moved into a separate article? Say History of England national rugby team and the information in that main article summarised here? - Shudda ^talk 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is huge, probably too long for some computers. I don't think it needs to be referenced, because I can't see any massively contestable/dubious statements, and there are a bunch of external links. It would only need to be fully referenced if we want it to be a feature article. I mean sure, if people want to add them, thats a bonus, but yeah, it looks ok. Narrasawa 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So you think a separate article is a good idea? Obviously a summarised history would need to be written by someone. As for the referencing, there is a reason that an article can't be FA without it. I think everything under project RU should be well referenced. The main reason is it's hard to verify anything without them, even if the statements aren't considered "contestable/dubious". I would try to reference as much as possible - Shudda ^talk 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shudda, the history section used to be split, but no one was editing it/seemed to notice, so I moved it back. But I would agree to moving it again if other people think its a good idea. Might be a good idea for Wallabies as well, and maybe Springboks/All Blacks in the future. Cheers. Cvene64 12:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's a good idea. A summary needs to be written first though. I may get around to it one day! - Shudda ^talk 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Swing Low Sweet Chariot was regularly sung at Twickenham in the mid 80s when England were spectacularly mediocre. The reference to a couple of school boys starting it is at best laughable.......... Dare I suggest someone on an ego trip has edited it????

Laughable or not, it is referenced and that is what counts. If you know different then find a reference and alter the article.GordyB 14:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try and summarise the history currently on the page. It can be found at my sandbox. Please feel free to help, once it's done I'm going to move the history currently here to a new article History of the England national rugby union team. Currently the history section (remember it's not at all fully referenced) is 40kb, which is bigger then recommended by WP:SIZE. So even the history section itself may need to be split off eventually. - Shudda ^talk 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I reduced the history section from 40kb to about 25kb. However it still needs to be summarised further. Please help with this, should probably aim for about half the current size. - Shudda ^talk 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings etc

There is no need to bold headings, or capitalise subsequent words in the heading. "2007" ---- should not be under a sction that say "2007 fixtures/results" either. Cheers. Cvene64 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In the process of getting All Blacks through FA, including the peer-review done before FAC, there was a consensus reached that the recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures list would be removed. They aren't appropriate in any of the articles, and I've no idea who added them to all the national teams articles. However they should almost certainly be removed from this article as well. Another thing, doesn't the records and statistics section need cleaning up? This article seems to be so heavily weighed down with unnecessary lists! - Shudda ^talk 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Shouldn't the InfoBox have a "last updated" date on it, especially with the Records Points Scored changing on a weekly basis? --Dave. 21:03, 17 February

[edit] To do list

I have created a to do list because this article has been getting a lot of contributions lately. It's looking much better then just a week ago. There is still a lot to do though, so please add any suggestions to the todo list. I'm using All Blacks as the standard to aim for for this article. - Shudda ^talk 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall results

I've seen that some editors have added to the overall results table but without completing it or updating the date on there. now if the date is not updated when the rest is updated the table becomes out of sink and incorrect, so in future could anyone updating the Overall results table please add the date they edited it and if you do please edit the whole section (i.e updating the win % and overall win % aswell). Thank you. Noface1 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fr:Équipe d'Angleterre de rugby à XV / England national rugby union team

Well I tried to look up information about a list of England national rugby union team notable former players with objective rules, its really hard to find. I need too a list of best top scorers ans a list of best tries scorer. I am looking for economic aspects of England national rugby union team : tv rights, coverture, how many english players in rugby union / football / cricket and other major sports in england...

Do you have some information to better english and french articles to do a featured article ?

Thanks a lot... Dd Ddfree 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about how to construct an objective list of notable players I have a few ideas. With the All Blacks page I had the same problem. I decided that the best way was to have the notbale players list those that had been inducted into the International Rugby Hall of Fame, and maybe also those that had won the IRB player of the year award (although the latter makes the list favour more recent players, the former does not). Then in the record section have the major record holders for the team. So biggest point scorer, most capped player, most capped captain, biggest try scorer. Also maybe record holders at the RWC as well. By the time you add all the players that fit these categories it's a nice number of what I would consider notable players. Hopefully this is what you are asking? - Shudda ^talk 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, really...

1. An objective list of notable players

that's the good solution... International Rugby Hall of Fame, or biggest point scorer, most capped player, most capped captain, biggest try scorer. Or IRB player of the year award... ::That's what you do very well in All Black Notable Players: is it possible to do the same thing to better english article ?

2. A list of best top scorers ans a list of best tries scorer.

Have you got some information or can you add it in the article ? Have you got a source ? We could add a complementary article like Satistics and recors of All Blacks...

3. Economic aspects of England national rugby union team : tv rights, coverture,...

Have you got some information ? Have you got a source ?

4. Popularity of rugby union...

How many english players in rugby union / football / cricket and other major sports in england... ? Have you got some information ? Have you got a source ?

Dd Ddfree 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

These things are more appropriate at Rugby union in England.GordyB 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right for the third and fourth points, but if we want to have a featured article, it would be better... Dd Ddfree 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I meant for 3 and 4 not 1 and 2 as well.GordyB 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think point 3 may be appropriate with regards to the club vs country debate though. It seems to be a very serious and important topic for the England team. I agree however that the other issues may be more important at either the Rugby Football Union or Rugby union in England articles though. - Shudda ^talk 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top try scorer

Anyone has the list (or the source) of try top scorer ? Please ? Dd Ddfree 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

Is this huge section needed if we have the history page itself? I agree there should still be a section in this page but I don't think it shoulld be this long as it's almost the intire thing and to reduce this page was part of the point of creating the history page anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noface1 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Agree, most articles dont have more than 10 lines when there is a main Jor70 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get this info from? Arsenal FC is an example where this is not true, and it's an FA. The history section needs to be summarised further, but that is no reason to delete it all! Rather then removing everything, please help summarise what is already there. It's a work in progress, so please do help. Eventually all the sub sections can be merged into one, but probably not yet. - Shudda ^talk 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal, Liverpool, etc have great main articles, extremely long. There are proportional to their respectives summaries. Here, lot of the info is simply duplicated. I said 10 lines before as an example (may be I exemplified too much ) on how the summary need to be. Perhaps a {{cleanup}} tag within the section would led to the people to help Jor70 00:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Help out. Summarise some of it yourself, many hands etc. A lot of the information will be duplicated, but that's because it's a summary. I don't think a cleanup tag is necessary. It's not a huge amount of work to get this done, so just help me out! :-) - Shudda ^talk 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)