Talk:Rugby league

Popularity between league and union

Which code of rugby is more popular overall? Is one more popular than the other in certain areas/countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew zot (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd already answered this but can't find it anywhere. Rugby league is more popular in east Yorkshire and west Lancashire of northern England and at club level in Australia. In the remainder of the UK and at international level in Australia I believe rugby union is more popular. In the north RL has working class roots and RU is seen as the pompous domain of public schoolboys only, but elsewhere in the world RU has working class roots as well so RL hasn't taken hold. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union is more popular worldwide but is not a mass sport in more than a handful of countries New Zealand being the most obvious example. Even where rugby league is only a small minority interest, rugby union is generally only the sport of middle / upper classes. Largely due to the history of amateurism in the sport. The areas where union is most popular are those where amateur rules were not strictly enforced or ignored. In contrast league is only played to a serious degree in a few countries but is much more of working class sport. In the UK the two hot spots are Yorkshire / Lancashire / Cumbria where league is a strong rival to soccer and Wales where union is a strong rival to soccer (some say union is more popular).GordyB 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that in the North-East of England (ie Tyneside, Durham, Northumberland), Union is the dominant form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.88.224 (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When compared to rugby league alone, yes. But let's not pretend rugby union is massive in Northumberland while its only Guinness Premiership team (Newcastle Falcons) continues to only draw about 7,000 per match. Especially not when Newcastle United F.C., Sunderland A.F.C and Middlesbrough F.C. continue to consistently draw multiple times as many fans. Northumberland is neither rugby union nor rugby league—it's association football from the border all the way down to Leeds. GW(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

change to RL Football

Hi, I believe that this article should be renamed Rugby League Football in line wth the names of the vast majority of football clubs. Does anybody disagree with this? Agree with it? It makes alot more sense in my opinion. I am not sure how the current name with the lower case for the L in league came about, but I believe it is slightly wrong and incorrect. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.218.161 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 August 2006

The current name is actually "rugby league", both lower case, with the R capitalised because it is the name of an article, not because the name of the sport needs a capital. While "rugby league football" would also be an acceptable name, Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name. "Rugby league" is far more common in normal usage (formal names of clubs is not normal usage). For a good explanation of why there are no capitals, see User talk:I@n#Rugby league. JPD (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a (rugby league) (football club), i.e. a football club that plays rl, not a club that plays rlf. --Angry mob mulls options 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

With the case thing, I have seen Rugby League and rugby league. I suppose neither is in more use than the other in any quantifiable way and calling it Rl does make sense on some level even if it comes off looking odd. As for the other thing, that is how I personally always saw it as its official name. There are soccer football clubs and there are Rugby League Football clubs. Just like there is American Football and Australian Rules Football. Mob, do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I am not sure about the logic. I agree that football clubs play RL, but the club also plays RL football. As for commen names, it would just be called football, which would be confusing for everybody outside NSW and QLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.218.161 (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The logic as I see it (from an Australian point of view) presumably there were football clubs in existence prior to introduction of league - well, of course there were.. probably just called Football Clubs originally, such as Sydney University Football Club. But as the various codes established themselves, it might've became the practice to name your code which still carries over to today, even though the football part is now redundant. That's my two cents worth, anyway. --Angry mob mulls options 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rugby League is incorrect though it is common usage, it is only correct as 'Rugby League football' i.e. football played by the rules of the Rugby League. While many in Australia probably do say 'Rugby League football' this is archaic in the UK.

It should 'rugby league' - all lower case to be consistant with rugby ball and rugby shirt (Rugby Ball and Rugby Shirt are definitely wrong). This has already been discussed further up the page.GordyB 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Noone is calling it "Rugby league". It is "rugby league" except when a capital R is used due at the beginning of a sentence, name of an article or something like that. Of course "rugby league football" or "Rugby League football" is a perfectly valid name for the code (no capital F, though), but the fact is that "rugby league" is now the normal name. By common name, we mean the common name throughout the world that actually identifies the topic, and even people in NSW and Qld are quite used to calling it "rugby league" when in a context where other types of football are relevant. As a someone from Sydney, I also find "Rugby League football" archaic or overly formal. JPD (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As a Northerner I've heard it called rugby, football, rugby football, rugby league and "League" but never Rugby League Football. Northern soccer clubs tend to use AFC to distinguish them from rugby football clubs (Hull City AFC vs Hull FC). Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it was interesting to get all the opinions about it. Most people are against it, I suppose because while not being archaic in Australia, it is not in commen use since the eighties, and in England it was always Rugby Football League, and probably not termed in that manner. I suppose there is no will for change than and we will leave it as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.218.161 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Football(rugby league) like soccer is presented than? I just feel uncomfortable with no reference at all to the fact that it is football and commenly termed that, at least in Australia. Jibus of nazareth 07:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody calls the sport Football (rugby league) though. Leaguies in England are prepared to argue with rugby union over the right to the word 'rugby' but 'football' is a lost cause. References to league being 'football' aren't very common in the UK and aren't common in New Zealand or Australia (outside Queensland and NSW). The sport is officially known as 'rugby league' and that's why this article has IMO the correct name.

The article could, however, do with a section describing the various names that rl is known by.GordyB 12:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added such a section. I've tried to keep it brief and current rather than historical. I also don't think the names that rl goes under in countries other than England, OZ, NZ and France to be particularly notable.GordyB 12:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore last bit. What league is called in Papua and Pacific Islands is worth noting. What it is called in Italy or Greece is not.GordyB 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rugby versus rugby league

The current version states that an unqualified 'rugby' usually refers to union in areas where both games are played. Now I don't know of any part of the league playing world where rugby union would not have some presence and these days leagueis played to some degree virtually anywhere that union is. IMO the phrase where both games are played is meaningless.

It also implies that people in rugby league strongholds refer to rugby union as 'rugby'. In Australia this is true but not in England. In somewhere like Leeds, Whitehaven, Wigan or Hull 'rugby' is likely to mean 'rugby league', if people want to say 'rugby union' then they say 'rugby union', 'union' or something less polite.GordyB 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is Oz biased - guilty as charged :p. People here who use rugby to specifically mean to league, well it's generally a sign they're not absolutely clued in, or at least emanate from non-league parts of the country. --Angry mob mulls options 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it so it refers to England, but I think it might be more appropriate to have a separate section on the different names that league goes under in different countries e.g. Queenslanders and New South Welshmen say 'football' but that is rare in England.GordyB 12:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not entirely true in Australia either. Rugby Union supporters and private schools generally use Rugby and League for short but in the wider community, they are both referred to as football and seperated as League and Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.219.118 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely true that an unqualified 'rugby' in Aus usually means union which is what we were discussing. The 'football' issue is another issue altogether.GordyB 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Private school boys and white collar professionals use the "rugby" and "league" difference. They are both called Rugby quite often. If one said that they are going to the rugby, it could be either Waratahs or Bulldogs. There is no unwritten rule that "rugby" always equals union. It is just tradition that Union is considered older so for shorter reference, the term Rugby is normally used for it as opposed to "league" or "football" for rugby league. Rugby however can be used to describe either game in general reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.219.118 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite so clear cut. Aussie league players often talk about going to play 'rugby' when crossing codes. An act that annoys quite a few English league fans.GordyB 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say it's not true. Rare is the usage of rugby by league people to actually mean league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont kno about Leeds/Wigan, but rugby, at least in media/popular culture, will always mean union. However, like the word football, if you say "We're going to the rugby", then yes, it can mean the tahs or doggies, I guess it is the same with "World Cup", in that, current events may dictate what someone is actually talking about. Cvene64 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On Look North they'll use "rugby" for either. During the short period where the seasons overlap they'll introduce the "rugby" then speficy which code as they cover each local team. Yorkshire Phoenix 14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rugby league in France

There is an edit from an anonymous editor that has changed some of the facts in the French section. The France national rugby league team article was similarly amended. The facts in this and the other article are sourced. I am not saying that they are definitely correct but they are verifiable.

I will revert the changes because no source has been given for the claims made e.g. that the orders to 'merge' league and union came from Berlin. If a source can be provided for this claim then it can be included in the article.GordyB 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The rugby naming thing

Here on this blog by Sean Fagan, the suggestion of only game being called "rugby" is examined. [1] He suggests that it was introduced by super 14 but I do remember some people using it before than. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.219.118 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If I correctly understand your inarticulate statement, that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard. Super 14 hasn't been around for very long. Rugby Union has been refered to as Rugby for much longer than that in Australia. I couldn't tell you exactly when it started (Tho i'd guess 1908) but Rugby league has had to be referenced as either League or Rugby League for as long as this 30 year old ozy can remember. NSWelshman 00:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

how can there be any confusion about this. rugby is rugby union, league is rugby league. Super 14 has nothing to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.184.212 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that article is bollocks. He seems to be saying that calling union "rugby" will make people more interested in rugby than league, which is why he's getting all worked up. Long bow to draw, the disparity in the spread of the codes (and potential further expansion) will/has little to do with naming conventions, IMO. --I like pants 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Different people will use slightly differing names for these sports. To suggest that "rugby is rugby union" is clearly just not true. There are two rugby codes. They are both rugby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.109.49 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really get what this debate is all about, but I see the point he's making in that article. They don't call it the 'rugby union world cup'. They call it just the 'rugby world cup'. Yet we have the 'rugby league world cup', even though the rugby league world cup has been around much longer. Everywhere in the world apart from Queensland and New South Wales the word 'rugby' is generally synonymous with 'rugby union'. There's no point trying to explain the difference to people in say, North America or Japan because they just aren't aware that there's two and don't know which one they've been exposed to. For them it's just rugby, regardless of which one they mean. It's a bummer, but hopefully league will grow more internationally and gain the recognition abroad that it deserves.--Jeff79 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In most of Yorkshire, Lancashire or Cumbria rugby=rugby league.GordyB 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, That's good. I stand corrected.--Jeff79 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

References to rugby union

I keep deleting references to how much more popular / competitive union is or how soccer is the real enemy not union. I am going to keep deleting such references, this is an article about rugby league not "rugby league versus rugby union". Rugby union is an entirely different sport, you might as well include comparisons with cricket.GordyB 13:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

rugby league worldwide vandalized

I have removed some text from the "rugby league worldwide" section that was nothing but vandalisation. Please keep an eye out, ta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.2.54.134 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Russian

I'm surprised this page isn't linked to a version in Russian as rugby league's more popular there than some of the other countries whose languages have links. How can we check that it doesn't exist in Russian and create a link if it does?--Jeff79 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So called nonsense

It is not nonsense to claim that Northern rugby union sides were dominant over teams from the South of England. That is what contemporary accounts even those written by Southeners said (see A People's Game: The Centenary History of Rugby League Football 1895-1995 by Geoffrey Moorhouse). It is also a fact that the majority of the England rugby union team of the time were from Yorkshire or Lancashire and that post 1895 the team went from being dominant in Europe to being a whipping boy. It is also a fact that the England county championship only ever left Yorkshire to go to Lancashire. Stop labelling things that you don't know as 'nonsense'.GordyB 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Rule Changes

I think the subject of rugby league's evolution through rule changes that moved it further and further away from rugby union is a really interesting topic. I think a great thing to include in this article (or the Playing rugby league or History of rugby league articles) would be the details of each rule change and when/why they took place. Some kind of timeline would be ideal.--Jeff79 03:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the evolution of rugby league, I really want to know more about Australia's role in the sport's development. Not sure where to find resources for this though. Australian rules football fans are all about how their game was invented in Australia (although there's debate that it's actually just an off-shoot of Gaelic football). Well, what about rugby league? In Australia we've generally accepted that it was invented in Britain, seemingly without giving it much thought. But I wonder where all the rule changes were devised. The way things are now, it's difficult to imagine the game in Australia following the UK's lead. Some recent rule changes were started by Super League (whether the Australian one or the UK one, I don't know). Maybe some of the rule changes in the past were instigated in Australia. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were. If that's the case, then the game as we know it today may even rival Aussie rules in terms of its "Australianness". As I said above, I find the evolution of RL a fascinating topic, and what I've read on wikipedia about it so far has really opened my eyes. I wanna go into even more detail about it and if possible open even more eyes further.--Jeff79 00:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention for individuals

The main trend now for differentiating between articles for people notable for their involvement in rugby league and people notable for other reasons who share the same name is to the use the suffix "(rugby league footballer)". The problem with this is that almost all notable coaches were once players, but may be more notable for their coaching career than their playing career (for example, Wayne Bennett, whose article is entitled Wayne Bennett (rugby league footballer) but is commonly linked to by Wayne Bennett (rugby league coach). The same situation exists with Jack Gibson, who is also most notable for his coaching. However both of these people had notable playing careers. Also, some people who are initially notable for their playing may become more notable later if they have a successful coaching career. Examples of this are Nathan Brown (rugby league footballer) and Jason Taylor (rugby league footballer), who (like many coaches) had playing careers that are no less notable than their current coaching careers. The importance of neither the coaching or playing aspects of an individual's career should be diminished by labelling his article either "coach" or "footballer". My solution is to just use the suffix "(rugby league)". In addition to being significantly shorter, whether playing or coaching, 'rugby league' is the topic all coaches and players have in common. Simple. What do others think?--Jeff79 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, it seems like a simple solution.CEP78 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea too. Bongomanrae 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After the apparent consensus reached here I started to change individuals' articles with '(rugby league footballer)' suffixes to just '(rugby league)' as I came across them. Some have been changed back to include "footballer" for the reason that they are still players and have not yet become coaches or administrators. It was my intention for this new naming convention to apply to all individuals' articles with the '(rugby league footballer)' suffix in the title, not just the examples I mentioned above. Firstly, for consistency. It would be wrong to have some articles with the "footballer" and some without. As I stated above, rugby league is the one thing all these individuals have in common and mentioning it alone in the title is enough to differentiate their articles from other notable people of the same name. Secondly, the title is really only meant to have the name, plus (in my opinion) the absolute minimum extra information needed to differentiate them from other individuals with the same name. So shortening a long title like Corey Parker (rugby league footballer) to Corey Parker (rugby league) is a good enough reason in itself. The shorter the better. And thirdly, there is nothing to say that all the notable players who have articles at the moment won't become coaches, administrators, commentators, etc. in the future. Changing the naming convention now to use the suffix '(rugby league)' saves us from having to make any more changes later, regardless of what happens in an indivudual's career. In rare circumstances, such as the footballer going on to have a notable political or acting career that clearly overshadows the earlier part of his life spent playing football, the title may need to be changed.--Jeff79 00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always preferred (rugby) since a lot of players / coaches switch between codes, it is also shorter.GordyB 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Being from Australia, where the word 'rugby' is generally synonymous with rugby union and alot of players and coaches don't switch between codes, I'd prefer '(rugby league)' and '(rugby union)' as suffixes used, depending on which is most prominent in the person's career. In the cases where individuals have been involved to a significant degree in both, '(rugby)' is currently used, and I think that's fair enough. I know that in Britain the two codes are more closely tied, but in Australia people tend to be very distinct about which one they mean to avoid confusion. I don't mean to push the Australian way on all wikipedians, but it's in line with the way wikipedia generally separates the two as well (e.g. there's a category for league players and a category for union players). Also eliminates the problem that'd arise if there are famous league players and a famous union players that share the same name.--Jeff79 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably should all be (rugby league).  The Windler talk  11:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What about when a player has played in both codes. To me just rugby could indicate union was more important than league, rugby player would be the standard add-on within the union wikiproject. would rugby footballer be a middle-ground?Londo06 11:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already been adressed above.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about ignoring of naming conventions raised at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt"

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Sports "revolt". Numerous WP:SPORTS child-projects are pretending that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guidelines don't exist. Needs to be resolved one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Competitions

'Liberty Bell Cup' is listed under "Major Competitions" in the infobox at the top of the article. If it were a major competition it (like all the others in the list) would have an article. What do others think about removing it from the list?--Jeff79 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Defintely not a major competition.GordyB 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this list to be shortened to international competitions that would be considered truly 'major' as it now resembles a list of all international competitions regardless of whether they're minor or major. I think the World Cup, Tri-nations and World Club Challenge should be there. The Ashes and ANZAC test I could go either way on as they only involve two countries. Admittedly I don't know which of the European ones are big and which ones aren't. Also the Pacific and Emerging nations competitions I don't think could be considered major international contests to be listed alongside the World Cup and Tri-nations. What do others think?--Jeff79 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the European ones are major though I think the Ashes and the ANZAC test should be kept.GordyB 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed minor competitions and added the Challenge Cup as it (like the World Club Challenge) has clubs from more than one country and is apparently pretty major as well.--Jeff79 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rugby League Worldwide

Seems an edit war has started in the Rugby League Worldwide section. A sentence in this section currently reads:

Rugby league is most popular in the north of England, Eastern Australia, parts of New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea, where rugby league is recognised as the national sport.

I don't think there's a need to specify which parts of these countries it is popular in. This is political correctness resulting from "rival" attitudes between football codes gone overboard. The sentence (as the section's heading indicates) is to be taken in a global context. That is to say of all the countries in the world that have rugby league, it is most popular in these ones. It is not saying rugby league is the single most popular sport in these countries. The sentence lists countries that rugby league enjoys a significant degree of popularity in. That doesn't mean other kinds of sport aren't popular in those countries too. I think it's unneccesary to specify the regions. What do others think?--Jeff79 01:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought of it that way, and I was probably taking umbrage at the claim that 'It is popular throughout Australia' by yet another RL POV pushing anon IP. Explained this way, I agree and will make the appropriate change. Dibo ^{T | C} 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's similar to the line that begins on some of the international pages: "Rugby league is a popular sport played in Estonia" - However, most people read this as if we're saying, "rugby league is a popular sport in Estonia". Go with what the average person reads it as. You can't go wrong then. I think the current line or the one you have above, is good enough. Its more descriptive and wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We're not trying to hide anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.185.40 (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys have got to be joking! League is nowhere more popular than Union in New Zealand, anywhere. Even the so-called League heartland of South Auckland would have a similar number of Union clubs. As for the popularity of League in countries like Jamaica, Estonia and Russia - come on, you guys are really dreaming there! In Estonia for example, the rugby league would consist of one or two teams of ex-Union players, fooled into changing codes on the fake promise that League was the more dominant code (as happened elsewhere in Greece, Serbia and Russia for example). Now that Union has been re-admitted to the Olympics, these wrongs will be righted shortly and League will disappear entirely from these development areas. Tell the Truth - League is a dead duck sport. As for League being a popular sport in Lebanon - again misinformation. Most Lebanese don't have a clue that League exists. At the recent Olympic meeting where rugby sevens was brought back, the delegate for Lebanon talked about the popularity of Rugby Union in his country, not League. Tell the Truth - League is Dead.--Nepialegs (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lebanese are generally just expats in Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.96.47 (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a debating forum. There is a place for views like this and it is called "Planet Rugby".GordyB (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose to rename the article from rugby league to rugby league football. The latter form is what is in bold format at the beginning of the article:

Rugby league football is a full-contact team sport played by two teams of thirteen on a rectangular grass field.

I feel that for readers who are unaware of the differences between rugby variants such as "rubgy union" and "rugby league", it will help them to have the title make this clear right from the start. Especially those of us on the other side of the pond who are eager to learn more about UK sport! :-) --Uncle Ed 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No, it is definitely referred to as "rugby league", and the title of the article should be the name to which a subject is most commonly referred. (Though of course often it's just called "league".) Perhaps in the opening line the word "football" shouldn't be in bold. StAnselm 13:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose; the sport is referred to specifically as "Rugby League" as opposed to "Rugby Union"; the two are separate entities, and should be treated as such. There are multiple leagues that play the Rugby League version of the sport, but they are each referred to as rugby league. --Mhking 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Adding football to the title will not help anybody who doesn't know the difference between union and league.GordyB 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Support I'm pretty easy either way, although I see where he's coming from. I have absolutely no problem with the first line including "football" in bold, and am willing to argue in favour of that. Regarding the article's title, people may not often include the word 'football', but rather than reflecting what people usually say, the title should reflect what is technically correct. Rugby league is without a doubt a form of football. Initially there was only Rugby Football which was played under organisations known as 'Unions' and then 'Leagues'. As a result we now call the actual games themselves 'rugby union' and 'rugby league', as continuing to call both 'rugby football' would be highly impractical. I daresay in the beginning though, people would have called them 'rugby union football' and 'rugby league football', eventually dropping the football. In some articles I've edited I've called the sport 'rugby league football' so that people who have never heard of it (and there are plenty of those in the world, unfortunately - never underestimate the cultural insularity of most North Americans) are informed instantly that it's a kind of football. But as I said, I don't feel strongly about it. If this article were to be renamed 'Rugby league football' then the union article would have to follow suit. It wouldn't make much sense with just league doing it. But if both did it, then I think pretty much all the sports on the football article would have the word 'football' in their title, which isn't a terrible idea. Wikipedia should first and foremost be as informative as possible rather than just reflecting what people that know about a topic already know. But I don't mind the status quo, as everything links to here anyway. Just my two cents.--Jeff79 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't support this, although I appreciate the idea behind the proposal. The sport is called Rugby Football, and it has two codes: Rugby Union and Rugby League. Trying to amalgamate the names may be actually more confusing than using the standard names. Cheers, DWaterson 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for explaining this to me. Clarity is what I'm after. --Uncle Ed 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. It strikes me as odd that this is not already the name. As an Australian, this is rugby league football to me anyway. Understand in Britain that the situation is a little different so not overly fussed either way. --Ratface 02:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rugby League vs Rugby league

Why do we use this naming convention? Rugby League is the actual name of the sport. Using Rugby league tends to give the impression that we are talking about a Rugby league, ie: league competition, not an actual sport. In every dictionary I've seen (including the Oxford English Dictionary) it's listed as Rugby League. This applies to Rugby Union/Rugby union articles too. I'd like to propose we change the naming convention but I'm not sure where to go.

• Note: I don't want to change every article to a fully capitalised name but I think that it should be either fully capitalised or not capitalised at all. Bongomanrae 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Might wanna just tack this onto the existing discussion above.--Jeff79 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about it but I figured I'd get more people's attention if I started a new discussion. Bongomanrae 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The things is though people are gonna make the same points all over again.--Jeff79 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That discussion started and finished in 2005 (excepting our two comments at the end of it) and it didn't really reach a conclusion, it just petered out. I'd like to think that now there are more people who'd be willing to give their input and hopefully bring it to a conclusion. Bongomanrae 07:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The convention is there because "rugby league" is grammatically correct and "Rugby League" and "Rugby league" are not. "Rugby League" refers to the RFL, not the sport.GordyB 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you back that up. The OED lists Rugby football, Rugby League and Rugby Union and I've never heard that Rugby League only refers to the RFL. Bongomanrae 09:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rugby is the name of a town and therefore takes a capital letter, the version of football played at that school also does since it clearly derives from the name of the town (and school). The Rugby Football Union and Rugby Football League take capitals because they are titles of organisations. The Rugby League was and is a variant of the RFL though it is rarely used these days. It is also correct to speak of the different Rugby Unions (ARU, RFU, WRU etc). It is not normal to capitalise the names of sports tennis, golf, soccer, cricket etc all take the lower case; the exceptions are those that derive from nationality or language adjectives e.g. Australian football; Gaelic football; American football. Some people argue that rugby union and league should also be treated the same, but this means that only the 'R' would be capitalised in any case. It is also true that you would need to write Rugby ball and Rugby shirt to be consistant and few people believe this to be correct. It is also the case that where a name derives from a placename but there is no longer a strong association then no capital letter is used e.g. hamburger comes from Hamburg but we don't capitalise it because there no longer is any meaningful relationship between Hamburg and hamburgers.GordyB 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Super League expansion

I thought it worth adding more detail to the paragraphs about the game being limited to the north of England and its current popularity in France. The deliberate expansion policy of the Super League may have had mixed success, but it has been a consistent goal for a long time now, so it is worth noting Harlequins and Catalans Dragons as part of that. Diogenes the Cynic 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This article needs as much expansion as possible. --Jeff79 10:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mungoball

Some twat has changed every reference to Rugby League to Mungoball. Can someone revert this? He's also vandalised the Australian Rugby League team page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.28.164 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that Mungoball redirects to this article courtesy of User:Warpath: "redir, sarcastic yet thats whats the sport is known as in the internet world". LunarLander // talk // 12:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why league?

I'm an American who plays rugby union and knows nothing about league. Without trying to cause or invite offense, could someone add a sentence to this article explaining why league players prefer it to union? I know it's supposed to be more exciting for spectators, but why else? I mean, to me at first glance it just sounds like union with most of the fun stuff taken out, but I assume there's another point of view :). 18.241.7.241 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate to add such a comparison, this is not an article comparing the two sports. From my point of view league is a better spectator sport because a) the ball is play much more (union is much more of a start-stop affair) b) the game is settled by tries rather than penalty kicking (largely the case with union) c) the game is much easier to understand - even internationals don't necessarily know all the laws of rugby union.GordyB 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To see for yourself - try youtube http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rugby+league&search=Search.GordyB 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello American rugby union player. I would suggest that the main reason most amateur RL players prefer it to RU is usually that they are themselves greater fans of RL. It is most likely a cultural thing. Having said that, the next main reason is probably that there is a lot more going on for the players in RL. It's interesting that you refer to RL as "union with most of the fun stuff taken out", since the opinion of most RL fans and players is that RU is RL without the fun stuff! The good stuff in rugby as far as I'm concerned involves running, passing, tackling and scoring tries. All of these are prevalent in RL but far less so in RU. Having played amateur RU occasionally, I personally found the constant interruptions in RU for penalties of various kinds to be tortuous. A significant proportion of the match involves the players' standing around doing nothing while the ref tries, for example, to re-assemble a scrum multiple times. Also, the emphasis on high scoring penalty kicks means that they are more prevalent, and this gives another element of "nothing happening" for the other 29 players on the RU pitch other than the kicker. These factors do of course mean that RU is far less physically demanding to play, and fitness is less important, but that's rarely used as the best argument for preferring one sport over another. (I would also add, and please note that this is intended humorously, that it is quite frustrating to play a sport where only the ref seems to know all the rules! Having watched one of Jason Robinson's "retirement" interviews, I found it hilarious that he admitted that he still did not know all the rules of RU. From an amateur, this may be nothing special, but this man had been the ENGLAND CAPTAIN!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.241.98 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As others have stated... league is more continuous in terms of play (making it faster) and the tackles tend to be harder. IMO its more exciting to watch (and play if you can run fast!). Union tends to have more complex rules behind it while league is all action, all the time... some of the more erm... weighty figures you see in union, due to the slower more tactical side of their sport, probably wouldn't be able to keep up with the more athletic league players.

Also some in England prefer league to union as a matter of class and the historic divide behind it.... league being more working class and Northern, while union is more middle class and Southern. (when people say rugby is "posh" they're refering to union) - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gnevin (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A "changes in scoring" info table, or similar, is very much needed

Hi all,
Reading Sean Fagan's "SAVING A LOST ART" about field goals (especially "when the code began in 1895 the 4-point field goal was one of the chief means of scoring points"), I looked all over the place for details of the changes in League points scoring, but none to be found. Even the scoring system I remember as a kid (big break in my RL interest is a whole 'nother story) is a lot different to the scoring system now.
A Rugby Union article section has this neat little table:

Change in points

Period	Try	Conversion	Penalty	Drop goal	Goal from mark
—1891	1	2	2	3	3
1891—1893	2	3	3	4	4
1893—1905	3	2	3	4	4
1905—1948	3	2	3	4	3
1948—1971	3	2	3	3	3
1971—1977	4	2	3	3	3
1977—1992	4	2	3	3	–
1992—	5	2	3	3	–

I really do think similar info is a must for RL, even if just to give context to historical games' scores. The challenge is out, and needs to be taken up!
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look through my contributions to NRFU and RFL seasons, you will find references to changes in the points system. By all means use them or i will do it once i have finished bringing the tables up to date in the next month or so. 11:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimmer1993 (talk • contribs)

Challenge met? I've added a table of scoring values since 1895 here: Playing rugby league#Point scoring. LunarLander // talk // 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of hybrid sports

Note already left at the template itself. I have removed this template from the rugby league article following on from another editor. Along with the problems of notability there is the biggest problem which is the title that suggests that rugby league is a hybrid sport. The collapsed box makes it appear that way. A name change may well be enough for me, but I can't speak for whether that will appease others.Londo06 09:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss here I'm not running around wiki discussing this in 2 places Gnevin (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed per agreement at the template talk page.Londo06 10:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rules section

This section basically states that rugby league has different rules from rugby union. No detail is given as to -how- they differ, or what the rules actually are. This section should be expanded or removed. 74.196.223.77 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be no explanation of how the rules differ from rugby union. This is not a rugby league in compared to rugby union article. I doubt that the article on badminton feels the need to explain the difference between badminton and tennis. This is a rugby league article and it is sufficient to explain the game in terms of itself not in terms of how it differs from another sport.GordyB (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Badminton is not likely to be seen as another form of tennis, even though both sports involve racquets and a net. There are, however, several forms of tennis, including real tennis and lawn tennis, and an article on one should compare and contrast it to the other (or link to an article—or section within an article—that specifically focuses on the differences). The same should be true for rugby league and rugby union. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also another form of "football". Do we need to summarise the differences between league and soccer or league and American football or league and Aussie rules?GordyB (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

'World Champions'

Surely the World Champions would be the current holders of the Rugby League World Cup ie. Australia ? Having Leeds Rhinos as the world champs gives the impression that there is no international tier (pinnacle) of competition. World Club Champions would be more appropriate . Boomshanka (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, don't see why we can't have "World Champions: Australia, World Club Champions: Leeds Rhinos" Mattlore (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely the team that wins the world cup are the 'World Cup Winners'? If the competition was called the world championship, then they would be world champions. For me, it should read 'World Cup Winners' and 'World Club Champions'. hippo43 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not called the "World Club Championship" either, even if this is effectively the meaning behind "World Club Challenge". It is a one-off match as opposed to a tournament, and is perhaps unique in this way. Perhaps simplified titles such as "World Champion: (country)" and "Club Champion: (club)" would suffice. In addition to being shorter, given that the titles will be followed by either a country's name or a club's name, there should not be any confusion. "World Cup Holders" and "World Club Challenge Winners" are the most technically correct titles but I think are obviously too long--Jeff79 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think we should have "World Cup Holders", but not sure about "Club Champion". "World Club Challenge Winners" (or Holders) would be the correct title, and I would rather use a long title than shorten it to soemthing incorrect. I don't think we should assume that people will be able to work out the difference between a club and a country. hippo43 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

image

I don't think the image shown at the start is appropriate. It could be shown where discussing attendances, but as it's the first one you see explaining rugby league, the players are too hard to see. How about a close up image of players playing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.8 (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. LunarLander // talk // 12:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section - is this wrong?

I don't have sources to hand so can't check. I thought:

• There were rule changes as early as 1897, a decade before Aus/NZ joined in the fun. It currently says rules stayed the same in RL and RU until 1907 breakaway.
• RL doesn't take its name from the RFL, it takes its name from either the Aus or NZ authorities' naming decisions. LunarLander // talk // 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox: First played

Gingerwarrior wrote: I think it would be best to establish concrete dates of when specific forms of rugby league were played. Something like: Primatively: 1845 Codified: 1895 Internationally: (whenever the Northern Union XIII formed)

What I put in the infobox is adapted from Rugby union. Do you mean specific dates (dd/mm/yyyy) or years because your example above uses years and so do 2 of the 3 things I added.

Dealing with each in turn:

• "Early 19th century, early forms" - It's not possible to have a precise date for this. Ball games involving handling have been around for centuries, perhaps there is an argument to be had over the point in history we mention (if any). Rather than writing early 19th century, we could mention games played in Greek and Roman times or the perhaps the ones in medieval and early modern Europe because they are the ones probably more directly linked to Rugby football. We could go with "Mid 19th century" as that is the time at Rugby School that ball running began to occur (the union page saying "early" is a reference to the William Webb Ellis myth).
• "1845, Rugby football rules codified" - This should be included because today's RL rules are directly descended from this point.
• "1895, schism in rugby football" - maybe the wording should be changed to better let the unknowing reader understand that this is the point RL began to branch off. There was a minor technical change to the rules in the first season (penalising deliberate knock-ons, I think). Major changes such as abolishing lineouts happened in later years though.

Regarding internationals: that's a limitation of the template we are using at the moment. If it is to be included I would put it under a separate heading because it isn't to do with the establishment of the sport but to do with the first time two countries played each other as that already played sport. LunarLander // talk // 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We could put in the exact date for the first league game of the 1895-96 Northern Rugby Football Union season - which the article says is Saturday 7, September 1895 (source?) - for the 1895 infobox entry. LunarLander // talk // 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I didn't mean specific dates. Lord knows, people have been playing "rugby" probably since Egyptian times. What I meant was say when it was generally first played (early 19th C), when it was codified (1895), and when it was first played at an international level. It was merely a suggestion - the association football article doesn't agree with me, lol. GW(talk)

I don't know why pre-schism dates should appear here. In no way can the rugby played before 1895 be construed as "rugby league" football, which I think is what that date field is referring to. It's impossible to say that rugby union and rugby league have the same "first played" date. League is the newer game and should be represented as such.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Several other sports using this template mention early forms of their sport on this field, but if the consensus is to use only the first day of the 1895-96 season then I'll happily go along with it. However, the reasons for leaving it as it is are that the 'rugby league' rule book wasn't created at a sit-down in the George Hotel. Apart from a minor rule difference over what should happen if someone knocked-on, they were playing rugby football as normal. LunarLander // talk // 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The birth of rugby league is widely attributed to the Great Schism which climaxed on that night in Huddersfield, so I'd go with that if the consensus is to have one date. Rule changes can be written about in the article's History section. GW(talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta say I'm against having the earlier date in the infobox. It's just confusing and simply not accurate in this context, i.e. a basic introduction to the sport. Any further details/analysis/comparison can go elsewhere.--Jeff79 (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what Jeff says, it is not "impossible to say that rugby union and rugby league have the same "first played" date. League is the newer game and should be represented as such". In the 1895 schism one game - rugby football - split into two, what became rugby league and union. They have the same roots in 19th century rugby football, they have both developed away from those roots in their own ways since 1895, neither is the 'older' or 'newer' game.

As to when league was first played, I think the reference from Tony Collins, Rugby League in Twentieth Century Britain is relevant here: "in 1906 the number of players in a team was reduced to thirteen and an orderly play-the-ball, whereby a tackled player had to get to his feet and roll the ball behind him with his foot, was introduced. These two changes completed the break from the playing rules of rugby union and marked the birth of rugby league as a distinct sport with its own unique rules".

I think we should keep 1895 in the infobox but add 1906 with the reference to support it.Haldraper (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the point that rugby league has origins pre-1895 and did not just appear, as I've mentioned above. Initially in 1985, they weren't even splitting into two sports, just two administrations.

I disagree with including the 1906 date in the infobox because that is definitely not when RL was first played. That is the kind of change that might be reflected by someone in the article writing 'this is when modern RL was born' but while a fair point to make in passing, it is not a fact to be put in the infobox summary.

The field in the infobox is for first played. The problem is that this field just doesn't work for our sport. It was first played before 1895 and major distinctions grew later. My favoured option is to add RL's pre-1895 heritage back in.

On the point of 1906 play-the-ball, Sean Fagan (referenced here: 1906-07 Northern Rugby Football Union season#Rule changes) notes that this was the return of an older rule/principle...that principle came from rugby league's heritage from before the split. LunarLander // talk // 11:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I don't think you could argue that the Rugby Football League is not the newer organisation. This is where the game of rugby league takes its very name. For the Rugby Football Union the clock wasn't re-started just because some teams broke away to create their own competition. It would be for the new organisation that the clock was re-set. 1895 is the natural choice for the date, as this was when the first game was played under the new organisation. I don't agree with including a second date. It is not for us or anyone else to say which rule change is most defining of rugby league (limited tackles weren't introduced until the 1960s). The most significant point is that the Rugby Football League broke away and started tampering with the rules to make the game more attractive and made concessions for player payments. These things both happened from the very start in 1895. Certainly it's preferable for just one date to appear in the infobox. When choosing that one defining date for rugby league ("i.e. "Rugby League football" as opposed to "Rugby Union football") it has to be 1895. --Jeff79 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, you're changing the goalposts here. First of all you say rugby league is a newer game than rugby union then when I show it isn't you come back with "I don't think you could argue that the Rugby Football League is not the newer organisation". No one is arguing that. We're talking about the sports here not the bodies that administer them. That leads me on to your point about "This is where the game of rugby league takes its very name". The body that split in 1895 was the Northern Rugby Football Union, 'rugby league' was first used in Australia in 1907 and not adopted in England until the 1920's.

You seem to be saying that rugby league can claim no continuity with 19th century rugby football despite the first NU games in 1895 being played under RFU rules and other features of the modern game (such as the play the ball) originating there.

You say "It is not for us or anyone else to say which rule change is most defining of rugby league" but Wikipedia is based on the use of reliable secondary sources to support text. Collins is a leading academic in the field of sports history and the quote from his book easily fits the criteria to be a ref. Why does 1895 have to be the 'one defining date for rugby league'? I agree it should be there as without the schism the sport wouldn't exist but 1906 was also a turning point in terms of the game having its own distinct rules.

Your comment that rugby league "started tampering with the rules to make the game more attractive" seems to imply that rugby union is the unaltered 19th century version of rugby. Nothing could be further from the truth. A 19th century rugby fan would recognise elements of the original game in both sports and find others unusual, arguably more of the former in league than union. If you watch the Mitchell and Kenyon films of NU matches still being played under RFU rules, you'll see a set scrum formed after every tackle. The forwards bind together loosely with the front row in place before anyone else: it's closer to a rugby league scrum (albeit contested once the ball's put in) than the touch, pause, engage of rugby union and there's certainly no rucking or mauling which some union fans seem to think are signature features of the sport back to Rugby School. I remember reading somewhere that the Victorian gentlemen who wrote the rules considered such play unbecoming, what would they think now!Haldraper (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, we agree that 1895 should be in the infobox (let's not lose sight of the issue) but we don't agree that 1906 should. Please don't go assuming that you've shown me anything. Once again, I was already aware of everything you pointed out. The only thing we don't agree on is the inclusion of a date in addition to 1895 in the infobox. Your belief that 1906 is so significant that it should be placed side-by-side with 1895 in defining the sport is the crux of the issue here. While clearly it is important, as Lunar says, I don't think the infobox is the place to inform readers about it. By putting in 1906 you open the door for others to put their cases forward with other dates. The limited tackle rule's introduction in the 60s springs to mind. So where does it end? With a timeline of rule changes in the infobox? A timeline's a great idea, but the body text would be the place for that. This is why I argue that it should be just the one date.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually didn't see a problem with the timeline in the infobox. If we can only have one date (why?) then it's got to be 1895 but I'd much prefer: mid-19th century: rules of rugby football codified; 1895: schism with RFU; 1906: adoption of 13 a side and play the ball (with Collins ref to show why that made game distinctive).Haldraper (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer one date, can accept two if I have to, but am against having three.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't see problem with three but if we're going to restrict ourselves to two, I'd go for 1895 and 1906: Collins quote makes clear why latter so important.Haldraper (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus: Field goal, drop goal

Please see discussion here on usage of these terms. LunarLander // talk // 00:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Amateur rugby union

According to the South African Rugby Union's website, 'League' has been a professional sport for which the players were paid for playing since 1895. and Rugby union was a strictly amateur sport until 1995.... According to a 1907 edition of a New Zealand newspaper, As we subscribe to the English Rugby Union (strictly amateur)it is impossible for.... I'm replacing mention of the RFU being strictly amateur in the introductory paragraph of the rugby league article as it succinctly communicates an issue that was central to the league/union split.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The South African RU's website is not an independent source. Read the section about the split on the History of rugby league page that contradicts the 1907 newspaper article and talks about the hypocrisy of the RFU that had paid players before 1895. There are plenty of sources to suggest that rather than being 'strictly amateur' rugby union continued secretly paying players until it became openly professional like league in 1995. One of the reasons it did so was the beginning of investigations into those secret payments by the tax authorities. Haldraper (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of 'shamateurism'. But obviously the second sentence of an article about rugby league is not the place. You're welcome to add it (with references) elsewhere.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion started at User talk:Haldraper.

I think 'strictly' gives a false impression of the RFU being virtuous amateurs when there are examples of them permitting other payments. I have a couple of suggestions for the text. Number 1 links to content on shamateurism and number 2 just says there was a disagreement on a topic and lets readers click on the '1895 split' link earlier in the text to get into the details.

1. ...the then "[[Amateur sports#Rugby football|shamateur]]" [[Rugby Football Union]] in England over the issue of payments to players.
2. ...the [[Rugby Football Union]] in England over the issue of payments to players. LunarLander // talk // 18:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

LunarLander hits the nail on the head when he writes "'strictly' gives a false impression of the RFU being virtuous amateurs when there are examples of them permitting other payments." I thought my "officially" linked to the discussion of "shamateurism" in rugby union was a succint way of doing that and can't see why we shouuldn't mention the contradiction between the RFU's stated and actual approach to paying players in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the question of whether or not the RFU actually abided by what its stated approach to player payments was is a detail that's much too peripheral to this article's subject so definitey should not even be hinted at in the first few sentences of an article about rugby league. I think the "1895 schism" link helps, and "officially" is better than nothing, but in a rugby league context, it was the unwillingness of the RFU to bend their rules on amateurism that forced the breakaway and thus the very existence of this sport. That they were 'officially' amateur is not enough. If they had not been so strictly amateur (regardless of internal breaches occurring or not) rugby league may never have been created! And I disagree that 'strictness' equates to 'virtue'. The 'History' section of this article is the perfect place to go into additional details about the RFU's policies and practices, and I would welcome that, but not in the lead section (which serves as "...a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article").--Jeff79 (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK then, let's cut all claims about the RFU being officially/strictly amateur from the lead and leave it to the History section/links to other pages to expand on the background to the split. Haldraper (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably best, it's only an introduction.

Jeff, what I meant regarding virtuous/strictly was that to a person new to the subject it would seem as if the northern clubs had ignored clearly stated rules. They would see no hint of hypocrisy, the social factors, struggle for control. I agree with you both, the history section can explain these details better. LunarLander // talk // 12:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hal, we seem to disagree over some of the wording. Your wording is "One of the two codes of rugby football, league split from the Rugby Football Union in England in 1895 over the issue of payments to players." I'm not keen stating that "league" split from the RFU (I think I might have been the one to phrase it this way originally!), it was a group of clubs that split. While they did form the NRFU at the same time, that was a new administration of the same game rather than a distinct sport splitting. That's why I prefer this: "Rugby league is one of the two codes of rugby football, and originates from an 1895 split in the Rugby Football Union in England over the issue of payments to players." LunarLander // talk // 13:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem there, I've changed it to your version. Haldraper (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of pro-league bias in this article. For example, at Rugby_league#Forwards, the picture claims Rugby League is "notable for hard physical play". This is completely unsubstantiated, and most players who play Union, or simply observe both, will definitely consider League to feature less contact than Union.

Also, there are a lot of cases where quite poor grammar is used within the article. I removed an entry on the first paragraph, stating "Its rules have changed..." It needs to be "It's", not "Its", and this is replicated frequently across the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wta121 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. Both Rugby Union and Rugby League can have "hard physical play". Just because it's your personal opinion thay Union has harder physical play/contact doesn't negate Rugby League's physical play/contact. If you want to discuss Union's physical nature, then do that on the Rugby Union talk webpage, not here.

As for poor grammar - the current "Its" is correct as it is the possessive pronoun, whereas "It's" is a contraction "It is/has". Saying your suggestion of "It is/has rules have changed" is incorrect. (Mattdocbrown (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC))

NRL vs. gambling

I have reverted two edits on how apparently rugby league needs to depend on lobbying against anti-gambling groups in order to survive. Coming from a British perspective, I had absolutely no idea what this article was talking about, since after a little digging, I found this story only exists about Australia's NRL competition. Therefore, it isn't representative of a worldwide viewpoint, which is what this article is meant to achieve. "Rugby league" does not only exist in Australia. If you want to add this story to any article, do so with a source on an article about Australian rugby league, i.e. Rugby league in Australia or even better, since it's about the NRL directly, National Rugby League. Any edits on the subject made here will be reverted without hesitation unless consensus is reached here first. GW(talk) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is about the sport, not about any particular league.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro

That references recently added don't support the claims that league holds significant place in the culture and heritage. The just say the game is played there and is popular. The exception is PNG but the setence should read holds significant place in the culture and heritage of PNG where it is the national sport Gnevin (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You want me to add five references. I do. Then you want to remove four. I think it's time you find something else to do.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to add references that support the claims being made Gnevin (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the references which basically say rugby league is played there as this is commonly accepted and it is not in question. I've also marked popular as a weasle word as it's meaningless I could say Gaelic football is popular in New Zealand. Its played there so it has some level of popularity. We need to say something like Rugby league is the number 1 spectator sport in Australia and New Zealand Gnevin (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sports with insignificant levels of popularity would not get a mention in those books. It is being changed back.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Is the term most popular a WP:WEASEL word which is vague and meaningless? Popular is undefined and doesn't state if they popularity is in terms of playing numbers, attendance, tv viewer-ship? Gnevin (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC RESPOND

I dont like to see most popular, famous, well known, etc, at first, per WP:PEACOCK, and second, as those words are very hard to reference. Also, popular doesn't mean a lot, anyway. Popular? This should be international encyclopedia, useful forever, even when everything that is not popular in any mean stop being that. We dont have word popular anywhere in Brad Pitt article... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Gnevin, in RfC you should not tell us your opinion, but just ask the question. Next time, only first sentence "Is the term most popular a WP:WEASEL word?" without anything else. All best. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think I was but I can see how it can be read as such Gnevin (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If the word 'popular' is the only thing you have a problem with, edit that word, rather than remove references wholesale from the entire paragraph.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rugby league is among the most sports ? That doesn't make sense and the refs don't support any claim Gnevin (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't like "popular" - not just because it might (or might not) be considered a weasel word - but also because it has so many meanings and it's not clear which one of them we're talking about. Wiktionary lists eight definitions for the word - of which five could easily apply here:

1. Common among the general public; generally accepted.
2. Pertaining to or deriving from the people or general public.
3. Aimed at ordinary people, as opposed to specialists etc.; intended for general consumption.
4. Liked by many people; generally pleasing, widely admired.
5. Adapted to the means of the common people; cheap.

In particular, are you telling us that the game is aimed at the common people or are you making some vague statement of numerical support amongst those people?

The way to avoid these kinds of vagueness and possible weasel-ness is to be specific. Don't say that it's "popular", say "X million people watch the game regularly and there are Y teams playing it" and let the reader decide whether that should be construed as "popular" or not. Similarly, instead of saying "holds significant place in the culture and heritage", state how many years the game has been played there and find examples from books and movies to show how it's become woven into culture - and again, the reader can make up his/her own mind about whether that constitutes a "significant place" or not.

Finally, for referencing, you don't have to reference facts that are either obvious or unlikely to be disputed. So we don't have to find a reference for "The sky is blue" - and we don't need to prove that this game is played in such-and-such countries if it's so widespread that it's not something that anyone would ever argue about. That said, if you do have a handy reference then stick it in there anyway. But one reference for an obvious/indisputable fact should be plenty, cluttering up the article with long strings of little blue numbers is distracting to the readership and really doesn't help anyone. Facts that are heavily disputed may need more references because those references might contain nuanced variations on the idea - or may use different data or reasoning in support of the same fact.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly about the over-referencing, but you can see, even when well referenced, certain editors contest and remove content incessantly. One can only imagine what would remain if there weren't this many references. I also agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions above about being specific, but I feel that's for further on in the article. The lead could probably be a bit longer, but we don't want to go into too much detail. And while naturally, like all Wikipedians, I share your concern about the use of words like 'popular' as weasel words because they're difficult to reference, it's not entirely impossible to do so: This book -Else, David (2009). England. Lonely Planet. p. 55. ISBN 1741045908, 9781741045901. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)- contains a chapter entitled 'The Culture' and it contains a section entitled 'Sport' which consists of 5 further sub-sections: 'Cricket', 'Football (Soccer)', 'Rugby' (which assigns roughly equal treatment to both codes), 'Tennis' and 'Horse Racing'. Of the hundreds of sports played in England every day, only 6 get a mention. Therefore, I believe if a sport is among these 6, it is among the most popular sports of England.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion change Rugby league is among the most popular sports in England,[8] Australia,[9] New Zealand,[10] France,[11] Tonga[12] and Papua New Guinea.[13] to Rugby league is strongest in England, Australia, New Zealand who's international teams consistently occupy the top 3 spots in the RLIF rankings , have between them have won every world cup to date and each final bar 2 have featured a combination of these 3 (England competed as GB in the past) Gnevin (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely 'popular' is a better adjective to apply to a sport than 'strong'.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really as I've expanded on how they are strong you could also include attendance at domestic leagues here to if that helps Gnevin (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So the UK Government's got it wrong too then, I suppose? [2].--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is denying league is popular. The issue is what is meant by the word popular . As stated below we are held to higher standards than a PR blurb about sports in the uk with no references Gnevin (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why not just say "England, Australia, New Zealand international Rugby League teams consistently occupy the top 3 spots in the RLIF rankings, have between them have won...yadda yadda"? You don't need to tell the reader what to think. Tell them the simple, unadorned facts - who won what and when - and let him/her decide whether that's "strong" or "popular" or whatever. Even if we have some kind of reference that says that a team is "strong" or "popular" - that's a useless value judgement. It's not a question of whether you can find someone who holds the same opinion as the one you want to write into this article...the problem is that this is just an opinion and it doesn't need to be expressed here at all. What we demand is fact. You aren't writing for the sports page in a newspaper, this is an encyclopedia. We state the bare facts and let the reader make up their own mind. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that Gnevin (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So even though it's proven to be among the most popular sports in all those countries, that's not allowed to be mentioned in the intro. I would suggest that readers would be pleased to have that information. This is surely nitpicking gone overboard. Gnevin even admits that it's not controversial, so what exactly is his motivation for having it thrown out?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems you have work to do on the intro of Tennis, Bowls and Association football (which managed to become a featured article despite it's heretic use of the word 'popular' with stacked up little blue numbers).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to agree that those other articles might have troubles too - but two wrongs don't make a right. It honestly doesn't matter whether this sport is considered "most popular" in these various countries. We don't need to say that when instead we can say things like such-and-such percentage of residents in those countries are fans of the sport - or such-and-such percentage play the sport or whatever. State the facts and let the readers form their own opinions as to whether X% of people watching the sport or Y% playing it constitutes "popular" or not. That's the underlying message of WP:PEACOCK. The example in that guideline beautifully illustrates what I'm talking about here:

• Peacock example:
  • Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.
• Just the facts:
  • Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[2] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[3]

So state the bare facts and lose the puffery...even if you have references for puffery.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop adding reference that don't support the claims your making .Gnevin (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Peacock example:

• Rugby league is England's ultimate sport.

Just the facts:

• Rugby league is the fourth of only six sports described in 'The Culture' chapter of Lonely Planet's book England, i.e. Rugby league is among the major/most popular sports in England.

You say, "It honestly doesn't matter whether this sport is considered "most popular" in these various countries" (no one's claiming that it is by the way, only that it is amongst the most popular). Doesn't matter to who? You? Me? Or someone who has typed in a term in the search box or clicked on a wikilink hoping to find out more? This and the articles mentioned above appear to illustrate beautifully the underlying message of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If, as you say, these articles' leads should all be changed to satisfy WP:PEACOCK then this discussion should probably be widened to include Wikiproject:Sports.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you have no intention of engaging with this discussion . All you want to do is push your own POV dispite several users saying this is not acceptable . I've decide I'm just going to remove the untruths you add from now on and as part of that the references you've added to reference 4 or 5 different facts have no place in this article Gnevin (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of the international reach of rugby league but the lead should really be about giving an overview of the game worldwide, rather than its popularity in particular countries which should be covered in the body. Rugby league is the most watched sport on television in Australia[10][11] and in neighbouring Papua New Guinea it is considered the national sport.[12][13] The code is also amongst the predominant sports of other Pacific nations such as New Zealand[14] and Tonga,[15] as well as in the United Kingdom[16] and France.[17] should be covered in the sections on those countries.

Also of particular importance on the rugby league calendar is Australia's annual State of Origin series.[18][19 is a debateable, dubious and probably POV statement. As a rugby league fan in the North of England, I can't say it really figures on my "rugby league calendar". Haldraper (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. Well that appears to be an attempt at justifying re-wording or shifting things around. Perhaps you should give that a try, as it's more difficult to misconstrue as unconstuctive than the wholesale deletion of content and references.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just done what you suggest. Haldraper (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a start. Now what about your view that "the lead should really be about giving an overview of the game worldwide"?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, agreed and done. Haldraper (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are the nonsensical references and weasel words back ? Gnevin (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please look at what you're reverting more carefully. It is not just the lead. And unless you can be specific about your concerns and discuss them, I will continue to pay no attention to them.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns several times but as you as say "continue to pay no attention" to other editors Gnevin (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to calm down and be more specific. As far as I can tell, the version you keep removing addresses all concerns here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely clam. Can you please stop adding nonsense to this article and backing it up with nonsense references . The RFC above illustrated the problem with words like popular and predominant Gnevin (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The word 'popular' is gone. You've just mentioned the word 'predominant' now for the first time (and your version contains the word "predominantly"). SteveBaker asked for facts and figures to be included which you have also removed. He also said, "why not just say "England, Australia, New Zealand international Rugby League teams consistently occupy the top 3 spots in the RLIF rankings, have between them have won..." to which you replied, "I'd support that." This is what I mean about being specific. Please explain what's bothering you. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Loose the reference they don't support the facts . The predominantly is a fact based on my knowledge of RL but it can be changed to x out y RL international teams are from Europe etc. Your use of predominate is a vague term which could mean 2 dozen things . I've no issue with the bit about rlwc considering I came up with it. If you want to add the sentence in thats fine Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

Proposed wording:

In rugby league points are scored by carrying or kicking the ball down the field, until it can be moved past the opponents' designated goal line and touched to the ground; this is called a try, and is the primary method of scoring. The opposing team attempts to stop the attacking side gaining points by preventing their progress up the field by tackling the player carrying the ball. In addition to tries, points can be scored by kicking goals. After each touchdown, the scoring team gains a free kick to try at goal with a conversion for further points. Kicks at goal may also be awarded for penalties, and field goals can be attempted at any time during general play.

Please explain any concerns in detail.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks. I'm making this change.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd paragraph

Proposed wording:

Rugby league is the most watched sport on television in Australia and in neighbouring Papua New Guinea it is considered the national sport. The code is also amongst the predominant sports of other Pacific nations such as New Zealand and Tonga, as well as in the United Kingdom and France. National teams from Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand consistently rank in the Rugby League International Federation's top three, and are the only ones to have won the Rugby League World Cup. In addition to France, these are also the only nations to have hosted the World Cup tournament, and are the only countries in which teams of the sport's premier club competitions, Super League and National Rugby League, are based. Australia's annual State of Origin series is also a particularly high profile rugby legue competition.

Please explain any concerns in detail.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As explained to you before, the lead is an overview of the article. Details like TV viewing figures in Australia are completely undue. Can you tell us why you think this information is so important it has to figure in a three paragraph overview of the game of rugby league and its history?

It has also been pointed out to you before that while the State of Origin Series may be "a particularly high profile rugby league competition" in Australia where you live, its profile is much lower elsewhere and again its inclusion in a worldwide overview of the sport is undue. There are sections for domestic competitions, that's where this information belongs rather than in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't live in Australia. Kindly try to restrict your comments to the material at hand. While it should suffice to simply say that rugby league is amongst the most popular sports in Australia, any such sentence is incessantly reverted. Therefore, in an attempt to satisfy the concerns raised earlier in this discussion, I've tried to present a fact instead so the reader can "make up their own mind" about whether or not it constitutes being popular. It is also the approach taken in the lead of the featured article, Association football (where the words 'most popular' are also used). While we're on the topic of this particular sentence, Haldraper, would you mind explaining this edit? The World Cup, NRL and Super League all get a mention and State of Origin is not out of place amongst them. It's apparently pretty big in Papua New Guinea[3][4] and New Zealand[5] too. I'm not sure how many other rugby league games per year are broadcast live to "the Pacific Islands, United Kingdom, Canada, North Africa and the Middle East, Central and Southern Africa and parts of Asia as well as Australia and New Zealand"[6].--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

King Charles' Head you mean?

The point is that facts about the game's popularity in individual countries (based on TV viewing figures or whatever) belong in the domestic competitions section of the body, as does the State of Origin, alongside the Challenge Cup, French Championship etc. Haldraper (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean removing Rugby league is the most watched sport on television in Australia so that its references are now tacked on to The European Super League, featuring teams from England and one from France, and Australasian National Rugby League, featuring teams from Australia and one from New Zealand, are the premier club competitions.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Haldraper, I still can't tell what you're trying to do with that and now this edit. Would you mind explaining?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead is an overview of the game, its history and worldwide spread. It is therefore appropriate to list the game's leading club competitions but not the TV viewing figures for individual countries which belong in the section on domestic competitions. The first ref does relate to the NRL being a leading competition in the world of rugby league; the second doesn't I think. Haldraper (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Paul Sheehan's article doesn't mention Super League or New Zealand's team in the NRL. It is one of two references for Rugby league is the most watched sport on television in Australia. You've deleted that sentence and its other reference and you've still yet to explain why. We've spoken before about how simply deleting an article's content and references is much easier to misconstrue as unconstructive than shifting the material around or re-wording it. Perhaps you'd like to give the latter another try?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rugby league's popularity in individual countries is already detailed in the Rugby league worldwide section. That might be the place to put the Australian TV viewing figures if you want them included. Haldraper (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're not arguing for their removal from the article, even though that's what you did? See how that can be confusing? You also didn't address my concern regarding the current use of Sheehan's article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's just their prominence in the lead that was undue. As I said, I'd have no problem with you putting them in the body. Similarly, it'd be fine if you cut the other ref, and maybe find a better one? Haldraper (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've reinstated the sentence and its references in the 'Rugby league worldwide' section. So now back to the lead section. On 18 June you put in this version of the lead's 3rd paragraph:

Rugby league is among the most popular sports in England, Australia, New Zealand, France, Tonga and Papua New Guinea where it is considered the national sport. The European Super League and Australasian National Rugby League are the premier club competitions. Rugby league is played internationally, predominantly by European, Australasian and Pacific countries, and is governed by the Rugby League International Federation. The current World Cup holders are New Zealand.

It is a version that I can agree to. Are there any other concerns out there about it?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Making the change.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The references added a dubious at best and the issue of popular remains unresolved.

1. I would proposed the previous version was better and we should revert to [7].

If this isn't acceptable then I would like to do the below

1. I would like to remove the references marked 10,11,12,13,14 and 15 (Rugby league is among the most popular sports in England,[10] Australia,[11] New Zealand,[12] France,[13] Tonga[14] and Papua New Guinea[15] ) or at least mark with {{dubious}}.
2. I would like to remove the word popular or at least mark with {{fact}}. Gnevin (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious about the references and the issue of the word 'popular' is resolved. But well done for not edit warring. That is a definite step forward (I hope I've not spoken too soon).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Those in glass houses at all that . What does popular mean in this context? Also I've checked the references and they all basically said RL is played there no mention of popularity. Can't you find some references that actually say they are popular? We could then move this from the intro and have according to x,y and z RL is popular in a place ? Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all been dealt with above. Do you have anything new to add to this discussion?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets take the references one by one. For England they got the year of the world cups wrong not really a WP:RS. The Australian one doesn't mention popularity . The NZ is just about passable . France has a strong following does this equate to popularity? In Tonga they play with all out passion' which doesn't equate to popularity and PNG says it's the national sport which doesn't equate to popularity. Gnevin (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, already dealt with above. Do I now have to type out equally obvious explanations for the rest?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That deals with nothing . Lets agree we are going to use the word popular (albeit it I would prefer we used something more solid) can't we agree we have reference that actually use the word popular in them and are also able to get the year of the (union) world cups right? Gnevin (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Typographical errors do happen (your last post contains at least 3). I say it still stands as a reliable source.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And the rest of them? Gnevin (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to find better reference for England,France and Tonga. Maybe you could find some? Gnevin (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand the literacy thing is a more long-term project, but would you please learn to reference properly? I really don't want to have to keep cleaning up your mess (especially over what's a complete non-issue).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What mess? What isn't referenced properly? Literacy? Perhaps if you can't play nice you should remove yourself from the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, more accusations of bad faith. Don't you ever tire of the same old tactics? I wasn't trying to be funny. I thought you'd be aware of your issues with the English language (everyone else who reads your edits certainly is). You changed "Rugby league is among the most popular sports in..." to "Rugby league is a popular sports in...". You also replaced this reference:

with this one:

Nothing wrong with the source itself or anything, but as you can see, it is badly formatted. I'm fixing it now. Your reference for New Zealand is also a car rental website which has cut & pasted from Wikipedia. Did you do that knowing it was unacceptable and would be thrown out, or was that yet another honest error?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was a wiki copy and paste. I'll revert that so. Sorry about the poorly formatted reference. Gnevin (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk organization

In response to a notice at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Sports, concerning the lead: I cannot easily help on that point, maybe on another one.

This page is very long (daunting) and you should want newcomers to read what remains highly relevant. The record may be sprinkled with such matters (eg, sections 34-35 from 2007?) so I doubt that it's wise to archive the majority of content strictly by date or strictly by section number (eg, sections 1-47). Perhaps templates {{done}} and {{resolved}} can be used for a time, to help achieve and record consensus about what is no longer relevant for this article or the main articles linked to its sections. If and when there is consensus, WP:ARCHIVE all of that by cut and paste. --P64 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've archived the oldest 1/3 of the talk page.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Current Champions

Is the current champions of all these competitions needed seem like undue to me ? Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainy the current champions are going to change and may or may not be constantly updated here, so that should go. However, one thing I like about that section is it lists all competitions, which I think is worthwhile. Perhaps having them grouped by country would be better use of the space they're taking up.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a navigation template? Gnevin (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Rugby league is among the most popular sports

Can you remove among the most popular or add references that support the claim . I'd say the the reference for PNG would support that claim as would the Australia one I added . NZ, England wouldn't Gnevin (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for once again sharing your opinion. However, as discussed above ad nauseum, the wording and the references are fine.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you copy and paste from the references you added the text that supports the claim you're making? I can for Australia and PNG Gnevin (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do the current references for England, NZ and France support the wording among the most popular Gnevin (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This is this editor's second RFC within 4 months on exactly the same point. See Talk:Rugby_league#Intro above for the first.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a similar point but not the exact same point. The text has changed as have the references but yes I agree the issue is similar as you're adding text that the reference don't support. Now if you can find reference like AUS and PNG (which I added) for the rest then the wording that is fine. I would also support wording such as Rugby league is among the most popular sports in Australia,[11] and Papua New Guinea[15] where it is considered the national sport and popular in England,[10], New Zealand,[12] France,[13] Tonga[14] Gnevin (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC Response by Zepppep (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is claiming the sport is not "among the most popular" in a particular country, references, statistics, etc. should be utilized to highlight the argument. The ref used to support England is found on page 55 "...rugby remains a popular sport,"; there's nothing to suggest what's found on page 54 regarding France would exclude it from being mentioned; page 73 of the Tonga reference mentions it as "rugby is the national favourite". The references definitely support the current wording of the lead. In addition, the article supports the list of countries in the lead. From looking at the information contained within this thread (and one recent thread (above) that talked about similar points raised), there does not appear to be a grounds or consensus for removing the countries which are listed within the lead. (Based upon the information provided in the article, and the fact "among the most popular" is used (as opposed to a declarative fact, such as "the most" or "top") I should see no reason for a reader to challenge the list of countries currently presented in the lead (the lead and body mention the sport's roots in England; Australia is mentioned for having a top league and winning the World Cup several times; New Zealand is mentioned as having a lop league and winning a World Cup title; the sport is mentioned as the nat'l sport in PNG. However, the current listing of countries would not be considered controversial, as the article goes on to mention current rankings of countries as well as the sport in countries and any leagues found within.)

Currently the lead contains 18 references (one which is used four times in the lead). This article's subject would not be considered controversial; therefore, it is unlikely such a number of references would be required in the lead. The items discussed in the lead should be talked about in more detail in the body, and hence, references in the body only would suffice. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations which states information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source.) Additionally, several references are used only in the lead but not in the body. This means either new information is being presented only in the lead but not the body, or it means the lead is mentioning controversies but these controversies are not talked about in the lead (in this article, it's the former and not the latter). Zepppep (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The popularity of RL in the countries listed isn't in doubt. The issue for me is that that references don't say among the most popular they imply some level of popularity. However if you think the surrounding text supports the words that's fine Gnevin (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rugby League in France (popularity)

According to the wikipedia article "Rugby League in France" there are only about 10,000 registered participants. This means the sports not among the most popular in that country, contrary to what the introduction to this article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.117.135 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Youndbuckerz's edit to the lead section

This edit by User:Youndbuckerz will be promptly reverted if no explanation can be made for it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Gibson rugby league isn't that popular in Tonga, perhaps it should just be move to say its popular is misleading really RL is only popular in PNG, Australia, and the UK, it has footholds in NZ and France and perhaps Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, US and Canada to a lesser extent. What do you think?

Youndbuckerz (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't. I use WP:SOURCES.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering adding "recent call-ups" to national team squads

Hello everyone, how are you doing?

I considering adding the "Recent callups" section that is used in national football teams pages (e.g. Spain national football team#Recent callups). I have brought up this idea, because the 'templates' (I think its called) look similar to each other, so I have a feeling, for example, the Australian national rugby league team should have a recent callups section and this will show the viewers the big stars that have played for their country in the past twelve months.

Tell me why you do/don't agree with the idea on this user page:Stefan Milosevic (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2014 (NZT)

Thank you

Unranked Nations

A little confused about what we should consider unranked nations. The RLIF unranked sections are unspecific about what qualifications are required and some of the nations listed don't seem to have any sort of rugby league presence, nor have ever formed a national rugby league team (eg- India). Added to that there are nations which haven't been acknowledged by the RLIF and affiliates but have played international matches (eg- Bosnia Herzegovina, Portugal).

Should we keep the definition of unranked nations as those acknowledged by the RLIF and affiliated or should the term mean nations which have played International rugby league matches which have not been ranked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.150.124 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"Greco roman rugby" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Greco roman rugby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Greco roman rugby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MClay1 (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Greco-Roman Rugby" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Greco-Roman Rugby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Greco-Roman Rugby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MClay1 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No mention of womens rugby league?

Apparently going by this article Womens leagues dont exist? Both Oceania and UK have elite tier Womens leagues 70.105.235.193 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling, perhaps the Women's Rugby League World Cup article could be piped, if not already done so. Sampajanna (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)