Talk:2021–22 World Rugby Women's Sevens Series

Standings

Hi all – this text, under the Standings:

England, a core team for the last four series events, were given half of the points accumulated by Great Britain in Dubai I and Dubai II. The points given for the latter event were rounded up giving England a whole total (8 points rather than 7.5 points).

and its equivalent from Men's page:

England, Scotland and Wales, being core teams for the last seven series events, were given equal thirds of the points accumulated by Great Britain in Dubai I and Dubai II. The points given for the latter event were rounded up to 5, rather than being 4.3. Thus the points accumulated were a whole total.

seem like original research.

Is there any reliable source for these statements with halves, thirds and roundings that is more than speculation?

• The ostensible primary source (archived) webpage is a mess. It has 6 points for England under Dubai I and then, somehow, no points for England below Dubai II, which supposedly all adds up to 8 points for a team that hasn't actually taken the field.

• While, I assume something may be happening with Great Britain's points, there is no clear and consistent method that's cited to explain what this is.

• World Rugby's twitter (and host broadcaster) listed the standings for the women (archived) and men (archived), showing only the teams that have actually competed.

Showing only teams that have competed is a sensible way to display the standings on Wikipedia, for now. I have commented out the table entries for all future participating teams. These can be re-added after the next tournament – pending a consistent and reliable source for their standings points -- Ham105 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removal: Hi all, the quoted text passages (shown in green and as discussed above) don't have a reliable source, are possibly WP:OR, and should be removed. So as not to provoke edit warring, I'd like some other views to find a consensus instead of further attempting to delete (or comment out) myself. Pinging the previous named editors of this article--@MarioBayo, Jonesey95, and WOSlinker:--please indicate whether you support or oppose removal of this text - and your reasons why. Thank you, -- Ham105 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I answered on my talk page to a request, and thought I'd note further, I am aware of team GB representing England, Wales and Scotland due to Olympic qualification since 2016, but I wouldn't know why they are rounding up points. As for the rugby points system, 3 for win, 1 for draw, and 1 for a bonus point in rugby union, but I wouldn't know about sevens... Otherwise Dubai II article might have some miscalculations, that's my guess. Cltjames (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk.

As for how teams are calculated in a table, normally in sports it's ok to leave a team with 0 games and 0 points and just have them at the bottom of the table with 0 as representation and have the table show all the teams playing, irrespective of if they've already begun the tournament or not, just to explain the format better as to who qualified Cltjames (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cltjames. World Rugby might be rounding up points – but we don't know that. The half points given and rounded up to 5, rather than being 4.3 is unsourced guesswork by a Wikipedia editor. Unless there is WP:Verifiability it should be removed. Does anyone disagree with this?

• A team with 0 points is normally okay, and I initally addded England to the bottom of the table on that basis. One thing on this – Not all teams competing in the series are known at the start of the competition. Non-core teams are announced shortly before an event.
• The issue here, though, is World Rugby's (archived) webpage seems to give England 6+0=8 points(?)... At the very least it's unclear, it may also be a mistake.
• There is no reliable source for these calculations and roundings.

Pending a reliable source, I think an acceptable way forward is to use World Rugby's format used here showing only the teams that have actually joined the competition. Would you agree, or is there a better way? -- Ham105 (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so as I normally do, when in doubt, find out the truth. I have emailed the contact details on the web page shown where England magically got 2 extra points from a non existing game. In cases like this, I would go with an average and see what is going on for the rest of the table, in this case it seems all the numbers add up, so it must be a clerical error. So England have 6 points not 8 (ignore web page mistake). Otherwise, as for the competition, no need to rush into the wikipedia page by not being patient, if the result postings are taking a long time, it's not an issue, remembering twitter isn't a reliable source. And as for creating a table, I believe there's an issue with international travel and covid, and that is why NZ All Black's didn't play a game (link- All Blacks seven, covid-19), but surely if the teams are penned in to play then include them in the table except specific circumstances like is happening due to covid, like I said, even with 0 games, but if their going to play then they should be included for future reference, but the issue there is for the tournament or for the season. Perhaps if you know who's playing the tournament then add them all, however for the season, maybe a different table for teams who have already accumulated points, because it would be unnecessary to include all nations playing to qualifying for a tournament.Cltjames (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cltjames. If you get a reply to your email, then I'll be interested in the reply. To be used a source it would have to be authourised by the sender to be used and then verified, though.

• I do not think we can say England have 6 points not 8, yet—it's not clear with no consistent reliable source.
• By the way, I'm not claiming twitter as a source – it was merely a simple way—for the purposes of this chat–to show a screenshot of the standings from the broadcaster's feed. The broadcaster's feed is available as a source ... but I digress.
• The reason for linking the broadcaster screenshot was to show future teams (i.e. haven't played yet) don't by necessity have to be shown in the standings, particularly when:
  1. we don't know who they all are; and
  2. the number of points they have—perhaps some are passed down, perhaps none—is unclear.
• In terms of having no need to rush, I agree. If there's no consistent reliable source for England's passed-down points calculation, then the Wikipedia page can wait until:
  1. England join the competion; and/or
  2. there is a reliable source.
  -- Ham105 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Can I ask this (to all reading): Should the quoted text passages (shown in green at the top of this dicussion) be kept in the article at present, if there is no reliable source?

1. Yes, original research is OK.
2. No, it should be removed (or commented out) until sourced as required by the WP:Verifiability policy.
3. Don't have an opinion / don't like the question / rather not say.

-- Ham105 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

---

A, original research is ok. But honestly maybe also remove it but once the tournament is finished and the article is finished, then clean the talk page too.Cltjames (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cltjames, although if you follow the link, original research is not okay. :) Editors can't just put in their own speculative guesswork, because it's not verifiable. -- Ham105 (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that my answer was misconstrued, you asked A, B or C. I said A & C. But in this case on the talk page, asking a question is ok as research, because it is like a draft page for the article. I mean really in the main article adding a 0.5 points for a rugby game based on non verifiable research is obviously not Ok, more like a form of basic vandalism. But you asking the question and leaving this on the talk page is Ok. But like I before, once the topic is over, then tidy the article and delete unnecessary passages. Cltjames (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, agree that discussion on talk pages and things like emailing for info are welcome. I don't think waiting, potentially for months, to delete speculative guesswork from an article is acceptable—not that I'm saying that's your position.

• Original research should be removed from the article. If it later proves to be 'educated' guesswork—verifiable with a source–then it can be added in. -- Ham105 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)