Talk:1999 Rugby World Cup

Host Nations

I have classed the United Kingdom as the host nation in place of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland because for some reason the page will not list more than four hosts and also does reflect the fact that matches were played in all parts of the United Kingdom it just makes things easier although just as I have done for 1991 Rugby World Cup. I have also placed Wales at the top of the list as a host nation as well as the United Kingdom because of the fact they were the principal host nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.161.174 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a lot better to figure out why it can't display all 5 than to put UK - especially because listing Wales and UK separately is a bit awkward. But more importantly, the event was not hosted by the UK; it was hosted by Wales RFU and jointly hosted by the RFU, SRFU, IRFU, and FFR. I think it is important to make that distinction and that UK has no place in a rugby article.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Uk2pnd1999-RWC.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Uk2pnd1999-RWC.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Links to external match reports

Why are links to sportsillustrated or the BBC for match reports ok, but not links to lesser sites that actually provide real and useful information? Site in question presents no ads at all, leaves no cookies, asks for nothing. Trying to make an honest contribution but seem to be always be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.152.245 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Because lesser sites are just that: lesser. They're not reliable, they have no pedigree and don't really add anything to the article other than an unreliable source for the scoreline. – PeeJay 16:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does the source matter if it's providing information the article doesn't have, namely lineups? It's not just the scoreline. The BBC articles are written by people with a subjective opinion, hardly authoritative, plus they want your money. They are gaining ad revenue at the expense of these articles yet that is ok? If anything I'd think that would be less ok than the lesser site which has no ads, no trickery, leaves no cookies. What's the problem? The only legitimate place to get an external report would then be by the actual people who own the competition or not at all.

Look at it this way: say you had an article that gave you the mean temperature for every day in the year 1900. Then you had another (lesser!) site that not only confirmed these temperatures, but also listed the temperature for each hour. Why would you object to that? Do you think lesser site in question is making up the data? I could understand if said lesser site was blaring with ads and trickery but it's not.

Look, if this article is "your baby" and you want to keep it "clean" (from your POV), I respect that and the work you've done and I'm not going to insist, in fact I thank you for that and for looking out for it. However, I just wish to know - are you following an actual wikipedia guide for this or is what is and what isn't authoritative subject only to your opinion? Also, would copying the data from this other other site into a sub-article on wikipedia which has the lineups etc and then citing the source ok too, or does that credibility too have to purchased by the BBC's money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.152.245 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not going to replace links to reliable trusted and independent sources with a random website that no one has heard of. It smacks of spam. A number of editors have removed links to scoreshelf.com, and if those links continue to be added without prior consensus, I'll take the issue to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and see if there is a view to add domain to the encyclopaedia's spam blacklist. If you think that the removal of these links is out of line, then I recommend you go to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard yourself and bring it up there: at least that way the issue will be resolved all at once rather than on an article-by-article basis. It may save all of us some time. -- Shudde ^talk 03:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok that's fine, but note that we are talking about adding content, not replacing content, and certainly not adding links to a profit-driven site, it's a hobbyist site, you don't have to dump on it. Links to other sources were never replaced, only additions were made when there wasn't already a link. If you think the new links are spam then fine but I disagree, they add information that isn't available. Carry on, didn't mean to pollute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.152.245 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)