This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to the2019 Rugby World Cup article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL

Archives:1Auto-archiving period:3 months

A news item involving 2019 Rugby World Cup was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theIn the news section on3 November 2019.

This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Rugby unionHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofrugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. Japan:History /SportMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJapan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like toparticipate, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project, participate inrelevant discussions, and seelists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported by theHistory task force. This article is supported by theSport task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations:Vinland Saga (TV series),Godzilla Minus One Addrequested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create somerequested articles. Helptranslate an article from theJapanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened: September 15 to 21, 2019 (23rd) September 22 to 28, 2019 (23rd) September 29 to October 5, 2019 (21st)

World Rugby has criticised the standard of officials in the first round of pool matches.Reece Hodge should have been sent off in the first half of Australia vs Fiji. He subsequently got cited. The two Samoan players who got yellow cards in the first half of Samoa vs Russia should have been sent off according to many experts. I think this could go in a controversies section or match officials section. (78.16.136.93 (talk)14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps we should wait until the tournament is over before adding a section about controversial refereeing decisions so that we can summarise the tournament as a whole. Otherwise, it looks reactionary and a little bit like sour grapes on the part of the "wronged" parties. Giving it a bit more time also allows for more analytical pieces to be written, which would allow us to better source the section. –PeeJay19:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PeeJay. Most refereeing controversies are discussed for a day or so following the match, often mostly by the losing team’s supporters, and then largely forgotten by the wider community.CUA 27 (talk)21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#CraigJoubert hahaRugby.change (talk)09:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The colours (green and yellow) in the tables don't match the results to date. They are all two green and one yellow regardless.— Precedingunsigned comment added byS C Cheese (talk •contribs)15:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The colours show that the first and second place qualify for the quarterfinals and the third qualify for the next world cup.--Anaxagoras13 (talk)16:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the colours shouldn't be used until those outcomes are known. At the moment it looks as if those outcomes are already known for the named team, not merely for the final positions regardless of which team holds them.S C Cheese (talk)16:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The colours mirror various association football articles, e.g.Module:Sports_table/WDL#Example_usage andhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_UEFA_Champions_League_group_tables&oldid=871093430, where letters after the club names show whether they have qualified for the phase indicated by the colours.Boothy m (talk)21:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the allocation of colours. It's using them as the background to named teams before the outcomes are known. If you look at the table "Key to colours in pool tables" it doesn't say that the colours are provisional, or that they apply to final positions in the pool. It looks as if they apply to the named team in the text to which they are the background. But they don't.S C Cheese (talk)15:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what it has always being shown and into we know the final results, the Q and E lettering comes into play to indicate who has qualified through to the knockout stage and who is eliminated. Once this confirmed, then those letters goes away and only the colours for the groups will be shown.HawkAussie (talk)22:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the table structure here has only beenhalf updated to new standards used in wikipedia (the football examples are good here) with lots of pre-2012 stuff still used just because that's what people used to use. The heading table at the top (explaining the colours) is not used there any more - replaced with annotations on the line itself. Similarly, the letter structure should be appended to the bottom of each table as the keys are used. In addition, the letters are (generally) used inconsistently with the colours, only referring to the green lines. The tables should, if implemented correctly, look more like this (note, I have changed the results deliberately to show roughly what might have happened in certain situations).165.225.114.184 (talk)03:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team v t e	Pld	W	D	L	TF	PF	PA	+/−	BP	Pts	Status
Wales(Q)	3	3	0	0	12	101	56	+45	2	14	Advance to quarter finals and 2023 World Cup
Australia(X)	3	2	0	1	16	109	60	+49	3	11
Fiji	3	1	0	2	17	110	108	+2	3	7	Eliminated (but qualify for 2023 World Cup)
Georgia(Y)	3	1	0	2	8	57	95	−38	1	5	Eliminated
Uruguay(E)	4	1	0	3	5	47	105	−58	0	4

Updated to match(es) played on 1 October.
(Q): Qualified to quarter-final stage.(X): Assured progression to 2023 World Cup and may advance to quarter-final stage.(Y): Cannot advance to quarter-finals but may advance to 2023 World Cup.(E): Eliminated from quarter-final stage and directly 2023 World Cup qualification

Annotations within the table are much better, and there is room for that. Would that also address my major concern: that the current use of colours from the moment that the table appears may be right for that row as a final outcome but wrong for the team named in that row at an earlier point of viewing? (This has been misread by everyone to to whom I've shown it.)S C Cheese (talk)06:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't add background colours to the table until the consequence they indicate is guaranteed. Why not add a coloured line between the rows until qualification/elimination is assured? –PeeJay16:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I was thinking about how we could better improve the article and I thought about possibly using a {{efn}} template which could be placed just above the references for this article as what it currently stands, it doesn't quite look right with basically the same sentence for both of those cancellations which could easilly be completed with one. Thoughts?HawkAussie (talk)08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that this is about the note template in the Match Cancellations heading. This looks strange and is very non-standard. It is also misleading as it is not obvious to a reader reading the section where that link will go. If you want to use{{note}} then have it in the references section where it is meant to be.AIRcorn (talk)05:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rugby.change:.AIRcorn (talk)05:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Are we saying that we want to use the efn template to briefly note the circumstances that created the 0-0 draw (game cancelled bla bla bla, 0-0 draw) and then use the Match Cancellation section to be more detailed in what happened etc, as per what it is now?

It is fixed now.AIRcorn (talk)22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might be just me, but the paragraphs on each pool summarising would be more fitting to be on the individual pool articles. Think of it from a multiple device point of view, when viewing on your phone, form table to results, there's a huge block of writing between it. If it at least had it's own section, you can toggle the section on or of to read it. Just expressing the idea, no real preference to be honest.Rugby.change (talk)09:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I think we should be writing individual summaries of each match on the pool articles. An overall summary of what happened in the pool may be warranted in the lead section, but I feel like the summaries as they stand fall into some sort of halfway house - too detailed for the lead, but not detailed enough to serve as match summaries. –PeeJay16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading your section in the "Pool Stage" and wondered if a losing team scoring four tries would also get a bonus point. If not, should the sentence really say "A winning team scoring four tries in a match is awarded a bonus point". I don't know enough about rugby to make the change myself.Juve2000 (talk)00:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A losing team would also get a bonus point for 4 tries, so everything okay in that section.--Anaxagoras13 (talk)10:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. So three bonus points are actually possible, two for the losing team.Juve2000 (talk)16:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia In the news articles
• B-Class rugby union articles
• High-importance rugby union articles
• WikiProject Rugby union articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• Mid-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report