Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 15 September 2007

	Rugby World Cup is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 29, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Rugby union FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

2007 RWC Favorite to win

How can anyone claim that the Springboks are the No.1 seed? This has to be a personal point of view! Look at all of the bookies numbers, as much as I hate to say it NZ is out in front by far. Every single site clearly confirms this. In fact, quite a few sites are no longer including NZ in their pools and are looking to second place.

I could not agree more.GordyB 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it even be mentioned? Maybe in 2007 Rugby World Cup, but in this one? - Shudde 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we delete any reference to the 2007 RWC having a 'favourite'. Misplaced Pages is not an odds maker; and the phrase doesn't sound like a NPOV. --johnsemlak 4:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if we say that for instance William Hill and Centrebet for instance have the Ab's as unbackable favourites we are then presenting facts and not pushing a POV. Soundabuser 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Where in the article does it say this stuff anyway? Goldman07 07:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RLWC

I have put the link to the Rugby League World Cup back at the top, as users may just be looking for that tournament, so its just easier if it is there. I will remove it from the See Also I guess. Cvene64 06:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't 'Rugby World Cup' go to a disambiguation page, instead of the Rugby Union World Cup? 194.203.110.127 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No this has been discussed before, and it was moved back to just Rugby World Cup. The name of the tournament is Rugby World Cup, and a link at the top of the article points people to the RLWC. And even if the page was still at Rugby Union World Cup, it would not be refered to as that in the text, as it is incorrect. Cvene64 23:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see now that the sport is consistently referred to a rugby union, only the name of the competition omits the word union (which isn't the fault of the article), and the disambiguation link is appropriate. 194.203.110.127 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Its real name is the IRB Rugby World Cup, just as the Football World Cup is the FIFA World Cup.

• Hmm dunno about that. It may be formally referenced as the IRB Rugby World Cup here and there, but it is definantly not in common usage at all. Cvene64 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Is there any evidence for the claim that the Rugby World Cup is amongst the top three international sporting competitions, especially given the limited geographical range of rugby? Is this not POV? --Parslad 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have heard this claim made many times as well. There are quite a few references backing this claim. It usually comes from rugby governing bodies. Try these:

• ] *www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/feddep/FinalEconomicImpactOfRWC2003.pdf
• ]

Soundabuser 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at the article there are also two references to support this claim. How do you mean it is POV? It is verifiable by many sources on the web. Soundabuser 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, its claim is to international competition..so it doesnt mean things like the Superbowl, which is bigger. Cvene64 03:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"""In addition, see Sports_league_attendances#Competitions_between_national_teams. It is second to only FIFA. Read down further, the Summer Olympics surpasses it, but the Commonwealth Games and Winter Olympics do not. Hope this helps. Cvene64 03:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with the claim - I don't think there can be any serious doubt that the UEFA Champion's League is a bigger tournament, or that it is an international sporting competition (it is just that clubs compete instead of countries). So that would push RWC (at highest) to fourth (taking the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics as a given). Arguably Baseball's World Series is also international (having two Canadian teams), which is also larger that the RWC by almost any measure. Either way, I think the claim looks a bit shaky to be asserted baldly. Perhaps rephrase as "it's organisers claim ....". Weasel words are OK if attributed. Legis 16:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the World Series (that is just clubs as well yeah?) has less games, their culumative attendance and average game is less than half of the RWC. And its not intended to include the UEFA champions league which is clearly bigger. I'll reword it to be clear. Thanks. Cvene64 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wouldnt mind Legis, please edit it to what you think is best. I dont want to upset anyone over it. Cvene64 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK will do. BTW, I fully support the nomination for 'good article' status, but as it was only nominated a couple of days ago, we should probably wait until others have had the chance to comment. Legis 07:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Claimed works for me. The nomination is actually pretty old, its the third oldest on the Social sciences and society list. Anyway, thanks for the help here. Cheers. Cvene64 08:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

GA status

This article seems to fit all the criteria nicely, and it seems you've worked out that dispute up above with references, so I see no reason why it would fail stability, references, or NPOV. One thing that struck me though, is that this article is a bit on the short size for what appears to be an extensive topic, I recognize that the sections with articles which say "Came from" may just be that short because you may of wanted the bulk of the info in the other articles, but for now, maybe expanding on some of the sections wouldn't be a bad idea. Homestarmy 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass and the comments. I will admit that some section are rather short, but I have a view to make things more comprehensive, as with every up and coming event, more resources re-surface and so on, so I expect as we approach 2007, the article (more specifically it's subarticles) will become more comprehensive. Thanks again. Cvene64 05:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration time

Ok, the thing of it is, as User:Cvene has pointed out, we might have to wait until 2007 to give the article more comprehensiveness, which I don't think is before the end of this week. So uh....what are we gonna do? Homestarmy 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

What do people think of putting an image in of England celebrating in Trafalgar Square as opposed to Millenium Stadium? They can both be in the History of the Rugby World Cup, but theres probably only enough room for one in this article. Thoughts? Cvene64 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anythings better than a picture of the Millenium Stadium. Arguss 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ireland flag is wrong. Can someone change it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.239.133 (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it to a Northern Irish flag if you like, I won't be changing it to the flag of the Republic of Ireland because it isn't a Republic of Ireland side.GordyB 19:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup Ltd

there is no mention of this in the article. Being that they are intrinsically involved in the host nation selection and organisation, it is strange that it has been overlooked. Needs to be addressed for the article to become FA ??? --Bob 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project I've performed a citation spot check on this article. The results were:

1. Footnote 3: The other four automatic entrants - the losing quarter-finalists from the previous tournament are drawn into an individual pool at random.
   • Checks out. From site: "Four countries - last year's beaten World Cup quarter-finalists Scotland, Wales, Ireland and South Africa - were handed the top seed status, and were kept apart, and selected at random to go into one of four pools headed by 2003 World Cup semi-finalists England, Australia, New Zealand and France. It is the first time in Rugby World Cup's 17-year history that the whole draw has not been based exclusively on seedings or rankings."
     • It might be worth mentioning that this is a recent change in the rules.
2. Footnote 5 (a): "The idea of a Rugby World Cup had been suggested on numerous occasions as far back as the 1950s, though the IRFB made it clear that it did not want its member unions to get involved in anything like the Football World Cup."
   • Checks out. From site: "...he suggested a Rugby World Cup in the late fifties. In 1968, the International Rugby Board (IRB) forbade it's countries to get involved in an international tournament along the lines of the Soccer World Cup."
3. Footnote 7: "Such was the celebration of England's victory, that an estimated 750,000 people gathered in central London to greet the team, making the day the largest sporting celebration of its kind ever in the United Kingdom."
   • Checks out. From site: "Police estimated that 750,000 supporters made the trip to central London, making the day the largest sporting celebration of its kind in the United Kingdom."
4. Footnote 9: "Recently, some media outlets speculated that the Unión Argentina de Rugby had only voted for New Zealand's bid for 2011 so they would receive regular international competition in return."
   • Checks out. From site: "Minutes from a recent Argentina Rugby Union (UAR) committee meeting reveal that New Zealand won the rights to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup by a single vote - and that Argentina, who voted for South Africa in the first round, switched its support to New Zealand in the hope of future favours."; "...that the UAR needed to meet with them to discuss the possibility of having regular international competition in the southern hemisphere in the nearest future, having already obtained South African approval for Argentina's inclusion."

Well done. --Robth 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage

The numbers are all wrong. 3 billion + people did not watch the the World Cup. This is spin by some very creative PR men. Even the soccer World Cup does not get half the entire world watching the final.

What the figures probably indicate is that the audience for all the games totalled up to 3 billion. I.e. if 20 games were watched an average audience of 150 million then 150 millin X 20 = 3 billion. It does not mean that any game had half the world watching it.

Even this might well be rather creative use of figures. PR men often talk about a potential audience of 1 billion which merely means that if everybody who could possibly watch the game on TV did so, the audience would be 1 billion. Free to air programmes in the UK have a potential audience of 60 million but in reality 18 million is the maximum achievable.GordyB 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A peak national audience of 4.34 million during Channel 7’s coverage of the final made the telecast the most watched television program of the year. from the IRB (bottom reference on this article).

If only about 25% of Australians watched the final when a) they were the hosts b) they were in the final c) rugby union has a reasonable presence in Australia, then it is pretty unlikely that very many people from non-rugby countries did.GordyB 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Initiative, the company which collates worldwide TV audiences, the opening game of the last rugby union world cup was watched worldwide by 10 million people and the final by 23 million people. That hardly fits the 3.5 bilion estimate considering the final was by far the most watched of all the games.

Hosts

Wales should be left as the host nation in the table, same with France for 1999, I think even though England hosted the 1991 final, it is only appropriate for the 1991 tournament to list the other nations as hosts, whereas Wales and France are considered the hosts, regardless of where some pool matches were taken and so on, leave those details to the individual tournament pages. Cvene64 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All Blacks

I have replaced New Zealand with All Blacks where the team is written up. The first mention of them in All Blacks (New Zealand), so it is o.k for anyone who does not understand. Also, the table has NZ flags, and the records section describes the players as NZers.Allblacks91 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted. I think we should keep it consistent, just naming the countries, not the nicknames.--Hamedog_Talk| 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

I think the nations best peformances image should be exchanged for a different one. First off, at first glance it looks as though those are the only countries that have ever tried to get into a world cup, which is not true. Secondly, you have to click to see what the colors/descriptions are. I think it would be better to color in all the nations that have played/tried to qualify for any world cup, those who have made it in green, those who have been unsuccessful in organe or something. This way it shows the countries that have competed in the final tournament, but also represent those who have not yet made it, then the image description can in short explain the color scheme so we dont have to click on it. I would do it my self, but Im not that flash with that kind of thing...Wkto guy 16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most countries have taken part in qualifiers.GordyB 20:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And your stupid because no one calls them the New Zealand rugby team. They are known as the All Blacks

Other info/views

Do you think we should include other information such as those that criticize the World Cup? For example, people recognize how big the event it, but it has turned everything in between it into "friendlies", and everything now is "in preparation for the next world cup". People have also become upset at what has happened to some competitions, in particular, next years Super 14. Also, some people say that it has devalued the 3N, etc etc...I know that there are policies on original research/point-of-view neutrality, but is this type of thing significant/relevent enough to be included somewhere??

Captain/coach

I have dug up this info from the old table, and pasted it here, just incase anyone needs it. It probably is not needed in the main article, as teh table would become too detailed, but it is interesting to keep on the talk page I think.

• • Note: there is a "Sir Brian Lochore" article, but it is at Brian Lochore, could someone do a redirection page?
  • Could someone please do a Kitch Christie page also?

There seems to be some dispute as to whether the 'Sir' should be included in personal names.GordyB 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Sir usually is not included in the name of the wiki article, but the Sir Brian Lochore is now a redirect in case anyone searches the full title. Cvene64 06:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• We should make templates for RWC-winning captains and coaches. What do people think? Goldman07 15:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Webb Ellis trophy

I originally posted this at William Webb Ellis Cup, but I guess it would be just a relevent here. Anyone, both this article and the sub-trophy article say that "International Rugby Board" is engraved on the trophy. But I dont see how this can be, as the trophy came about in the 80s, and there was no "International Rugby Board", but instead, the "International Rugby FOOTBALL Board", with the name change apparently coming about in the late 90s...so whats the deal with the engravings??

World Cup or world cup?

When used in an isolated context, should it not be lower case? Narrasawa

No, it is a title even when 'Rugby' does not come before it. The same as 'Six Nations' or 'Super 14'.GordyB 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The whistle

I heard that the same whistle has been used to kick off every WC, and that it is over 100 years old. Apparently it was also used at the 1905 English/All Blacks Test, as well as the 1924 Olympic final..and...it was used in another All Blacks/English Test in 1925, the first Test where a rugby footballer was sent off. Should we integrate this into the article or somewhere else? Obviously it does warrant its own section, as it would be too short, but its a notable tradition.Narrasawa 11:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts about this? Narrasawa 12:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, add it if you have any sources.--Hamedog_Talk| 14:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read about that on a few websites. But I don't know where you would put it..maybe it would be better under its own section at History of the Rugby World Cup..? Cvene64 13:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Main

We did!--Hamedog_Talk| 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did we? lol... i think you forgot "it" -- SmthManly / / 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The trophy is currently kept in the Museum of Rugby, London.

I thought that the real trophy was on tour in france? And I was under the impression that the real cup is kept at the IRB hq?

Media coverage is misleading

The Media coverage numbers are misleading. You should define the term "cumulative audience" (like the FIFA World Cup article does), otherwise, it would beat the FIFA World Cup by numbers. In fact, the cumulative audience is misleading and insignificant in terms of comparing with other sports events. Therefore these statistics should be removed from the article and replaced by the number of watchers for ONE match (a final probably). Check the "Media coverage" section in the FIFA World Cup article. CG 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some vandalism has gone un-detected = Rugby_World_Cup#Records_and_statistics.--Aqua2000 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The template

Can someone make the title Rugby World Cup at the top appear in the middle, not slightly to the side?--Aqua2000 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Which one?--Hamedog_Talk| 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar police

I found this article off the main page (congratulations!), but spotted a few grammar mistakes in it; normally, I'd just change it, but since this is FA and main page article, I'm reluctant to do so. So, I'll put the suggested change here, and if no-one complains will do it properly in a day or two's time:

• Sentence "The tournament included a repêchage system, alongside specific regional qualifying places, and an increase of 16 to 20 participating nations" - needs changing to say "increase from 16 to 20"
• Sentence "The 2003 event was hosted by Australia, though it was originally intended to be held jointly with New Zealand, though disagreements between the IRB and the NZRFU, over sponsorship, advertising and ticketing, saw the competition given in its entirety to Australia." just reads wrong. I'd suggest changing to "The 2003 event was hosted by Australia; although it was originally intended to be held jointly with New Zealand, though disagreements between the IRB and the NZRFU over sponsorship, advertising and ticketing saw the competition given in its entirety to Australia."

There are also a few places throughout the article where commas are mis-used (wrong place, shouldn't be there at all, whatever); I'll change them at the same time. Carre 17:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change the errors. Btw, isn't repêchage the correct spelling--Hamedog_Talk| 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Choice of 1987 as year for 1st edition

Hi, does anybody know why 1987 was chosen as the year for the first World Cup, it may be to avoid been the same year as the Football World Cup and the Olympic games, any reference on that ? Thanks Dingy 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stats

If Portugal is listed as Most Recent (2007) so should all the other 2007 nations. Goldman07 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, are there any other countries making their first appearance though? - Shudda 03:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Think he means that if (2007) comes under Most recent app., then the other 19 teams should have that as theirs as well. Cvene64 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry. Yeah that shouldn't be done yet. Although unlikely, they may not appear in the World Cup this year. - Shudda 10:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if Portugal have 2007 as theirs, so should all the others who are going. A note/ref should be attached to the heding of Most recent appearance that says this includes the yet to be played 2007 tournament. 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The World in Union

Should there be any space devoted to "The World in Union?"24.44.137.19 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• FA-Class rugby union articles
• Top-importance rugby union articles
• WikiProject Rugby union articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles