Talk:Tag:sport=rugby

Sport = Rugby or specific rules

Hi all. I have updated the article having read through this page and also having mapped a few rugby places. I can see there's a preference for using sport=rugby with only one editor choosing the other method.

Therefore I think it's best if we're clear about using the above method. It is clearly superior, as the majority of users and data users will only want to see whether a pitch is used for rugby. The code is an afterthought for those who are more knowledgeable about the sport, and rugby=union and rugby=league does just that.

Otherwise using sport=rugby_union makes it really difficult for average users to access information about the sport as a whole. It makes rugby union into an individual sport, as if it is cricket or basketball. This is more like a debate about cricket. Big Bash or Twenty20 may be played at different places but we wouldn't use that to identify the field or the clubhouse. Unlike American Football vs Canadian Football they're tagged separately because they're played exclusively in those countries. Whereas rugby union and league are both played in countries simultaneously, often at the same grounds or in the same counties and regions.

Please do share any thoughts if you have any. --Zendesk (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I support this idea. We should just "correct" all the wiki pages. I'm quite engaged in the mapping of German rugby pitches. sport=rugby will help improving this, because almost all sport=rugby_league pitches I found were wrong. Most Germans can't differentiate between Union and League, it's a wonder if they know Rugby at all (and don't get confused with American Football). --Jonsger (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguous Pitches

What about rugby pitches with just the 'H' posts and cropped grass at the shared compatible width of 68 metres? Using sport=rugby seems more sane here than sport=rugby_union;rugby_league. --Pink Duck 15:45, 20 September 2010 (BST)

or cases where primary use is for Rugby Union but may also be used for Rugby League, surely plain old rugby works just fine here? --Chris 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you tag the main use, rather than both if the secondary use is minor? -- JohnSmith 09:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly are you supposed to determine that from a muddly puddle with H shaped posts at each end? sport=rugby adequately maps what's found on the ground. --JonS 17:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The ground is often named with the team, not just a muddy puddle with a pair of H shaped posts at either end. -- JohnSmith 05:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reworking tag articles

I have reworked the articles for rugby, rugby_league and rugby_union making it clear that it is acceptable to use rugby where details are not known which seems pretty reasonable to me. People who are keen on the subject can then enhance the tagging. PeterIto 13:30, 18 June 2012 (BST)

Rugby tag?

I have just checked and the rugby tag has only been used a total 9 times (June 2012). Can I suggest that for simplicity we remove this alternative tagging approach from the article and convert the existing tags to rugby_union/league as required? PeterIto 13:35, 18 June 2012 (BST)

I feel using sport=rugby and rugby=* in combination is actually a better solution because:

• All Rugby grounds, irrespective of code, can be identified using the single tag.
• Mappers who neither know nor care which code is played at a ground can still accurately map the pitch
• Data consumers who don't want/need to differentiate at this level don't need to take into account three different ways of tagging a rugby pitch just to include them all

At the time of my last edit to the page, this was also the most common scheme in use. I also have a suspicion, but cannot substantiate without research I don't have time for right now, that many grounds tagged according to this scheme were changed to using separate rugby_union and rugby_league tags by a single mapper without discussion with the community. I'd say change back to the old scheme, but obviously if others feel differently, I'll go with the consensus.

-- Jonathan Bennett 14:41, 18 June 2012 (BST)

Thanks for responding. I agree that the rugby tag may well be better, however we need to make a clear distinction between established practice and proposed different ways of doing things. Given that this it is mainly an idea at present I suggest that we move it to a new proposal section on the page allowing people to consider using it and discuss it. I have now created that section. PeterIto 14:58, 18 June 2012 (BST)

Just to clarify a point: sport=rugby was in use long before the separate tags. It's not a new proposal, but an attempt to undo the work of a single wiki editor. Jonathan Bennett 15:24, 18 June 2012 (BST)

The way I see it is as as follows: the 'sport=rugby' tag is used where people see a pair of H goalposts over a hedge or on aerial imagery, know it relates to Rugby, but don't feel inclined, or can't find out more detail about which sport. Then there are the sport=rugby_union/league tags, which are used instead where people do know which one it is or where someone converts a previous sport=rugby tag into something more detailed. Separately, there is the rugby=* suggestions (note, not sport=rugby) which is at this point mainly just an idea. Have I got it about right? PeterIto 17:35, 18 June 2012 (BST)

No, sorry, you haven't. If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that plain sport=rugby was in use before User:JohnSmith decided to unilaterally rewrite the rules in this edit. So the original scheme is sport=rubgy plus rugby=* for those who knew and cared about which code was played. Jonathan Bennett 21:09, 18 June 2012 (BST)

OK, so there is agreement that sport=rugby is the tag for where more details aren't available and then there is a disagreement when there are more details available, with two conflicting proposed methods. Personally I am really not that fussed which is used so for now I will add a note to the tag pages explaining the disagreement which ideally needs to be resolved at some point. PeterIto 23:35, 18 June 2012 (BST)