Talk:Rugby Super League (US)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. OK, I'll dab the incoming links. Duja^► 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Super League → Rugby Super League (US) — This term is used both officially and informally for other rugby competitions. Warofdreams talk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Warofdreams talk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support - as per nomination. 'Rugby' for people in the North of England is an ambigous term as it is often used to refer to 'rugby league' as well as 'rugby union'. GordyB (damn sig thing not working).18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as per my comments in the discussion above. Yorkshire Phoenix 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support- It is both the name of the competition, a fairly commen name used on sky sports broadcasts. The premier league is still the FA premier league without mention of sponsorship, and I tend to believe that those who are denying it are doing so for no reason but animosity towards rugby league. The American union competition is not even really notable from what I have researched, no crowds worth mentioning, no history, no t.v. contracts that I have found, no general corporate support, nothing compared to the English competition. Please correct that estimation if it is correctable, but my opinion is that the term "rugby super league" should go straight to the northern England professional competition with a link to the American competition. Cheers --Ehinger222 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Your ignorant claims show just how little you've researched this topic. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Than by all means present some evidence please... I would welcome it, as this competition does not seem notable at all by my current estimation and interpretation. --Ehinger222 09:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This survey is not necessary, as actual Wikipedia policies support the US competition retaining the name. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The evidence Ehinger222 gives above shows that the British competition has the same official name. If this is correct, then Wikipedia policies do not support the US competition retaining the name. Even if it is not correct, there is still a discussion to be had and no reason not to propose a move. Warofdreams talk 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the British comp is officially named the "Rugby Super League". Furthermore, official policies triumph any discussions that might be held here. Feel free to be bold and take measures to enact policy changes. However, as it stands now, regardless of any discussions, Wikipedia's policies hold that the US competition will not be moved from its official name hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the British competition's website has very strong evidence that this is the competition's name. Its main page is entitled "Engage Rugby Super League". Would you please direct me to the policy which you believe trumps any discussion here? I am not aware of one. Warofdreams talk 01:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the official name is the "Rugby Super League". The league is called the "Engage Rugby Super League" and should be named as such. Conversely, the actual name of the US comp is the Rugby Super League. Please see this image, which proves it, as well as shows that they actually hold the copyright to the name. You can also see the official website here. In as far as policies, WP:NAME and WP:MOS support the US comp retaining the name. Furthermore, as a bureaucrat, you should know that policies triumph an inherently POV English bias towards league. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the consensus has always been not to include sponsor names in article titles, so your argument does not hold. I agree that the US league has the same official name, hence the need for disambiguation. Could you be a little more specific and give the sections of the policies to which you refer? I cannot find any sections which suggest that the US comp should retain the name. I find your final point quite bizarre - personally, I have little interest in rugby, but know more about union than league; I live in Sheffield, where union and league are both popular, and originate in southern England, where league is barely played. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NAME#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things states that the common name should be used. The common name of the comp is not the "Rugby Super League (US)". Also, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic . The article originally adhered to the bit about linking to other uses, but has since been changed. In regards to the inherent POV in these discussions, just take a look at User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127), this, and this (specifically the edit summaries in the diffs). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are mistaken in as far as my argument not holding in regards to sponsor names in article titles; see NEXTEL Cup, Chick-fil-A Bowl, Meineke Car Care Bowl, EDF Energy Cup, BT League Championship, Air New Zealand Cup, Heineken Cup, Carib Beer Cup, Ford Ranger One Day Cup, and scores of others (I'd be happy to provide more examples if you want). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that those sections on are the relevant policies here. As "use common names..." states, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." - here, there is a conflict. As "primary topic" states, "Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page." To my mind, there is no single dominant usage here - in the U.S., those who have heard of it will think of the American competition; in the UK, most people will think of the league contest (it could be argued that the European contest is so much better known that it is the primary usage, even though it is more often simply called the "Super League". The policies clearly do not support your argument. With regard to sponsor's names, I've not been able to find a written policy, but there are clearly many examples where they are not included in article titles. In almost all the examples you give, there is no common name excluding the sponsor - this is not the case here. But this is rather beside the point, as the issue is that the European competition is often known as the Rugby Super League. Finally, it'd be good to avoid personal attacks here. Warofdreams talk 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I understand what you mean about the "common name"; both are commonly known as the "Super League" or "Rugby Super League" or "RSL" in their respective areas; England and the US. How about keeping the Super League page as is for the most part, but linking to Rugby Super League, which will be another dab page for rugby union and league competitions (I'm not sure of what the exact MOS is here). In as far as the current article, I'd be fine with a move to Rugby Super League (US) provided that whomever does the move adheres to the manual of style which mentions that the "what links here" bluelinks must be changed. That is, all Rugby Super League bluelinks need to be changed to Rugby Super League (US). Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'd certainly support that option. Warofdreams talk 22:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the American competition even have a commen name? How many Americans have heard about it enough to give it a commen name? The English competition is a notable competition with a multi million dollar salary cap, a hundreds years and more of history(that led to the creation of the rugby super league), some of the oldest football clubs in the world like Hull FC, Bradford Bulls etc., multi country broadcasting(in Australia and NZ), sold out finals at big stadiums like Old Trafford, history of large attendances particuarly on the post WWII times, decently attended football clubs like Leeds average attendance(2005, 17 000), Wigan(>10 000), Bradford (>10 000), Hull FC (>10 000), St Helens (>10 000). The competition is also involved in a multi national competition against the NRL in the world club challenge. Does the American competition compare to this on any of these levels or any other notable levels? --Ehinger222 06:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it says on the rugby super league (USA) that the final for 2005 was played here[2], a 6,800 stadium, and there was no indication about the attendance for that stadium. Ehinger222 09:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not ranked in the top 125 football leagues on average attendances for 2004 (There are no records on the site for 2005 and 2006) where as the Rugby Super League is no. 34 on that list.[3] --Ehinger222 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact the American Super League has an average attendance of 236 persons for each game in 2004, making it slightly below Finland rugby league at 237 persons, the Serbian rugby league championship at 257 persons and probably any local league in Australia if records were ever kept, but notably still ahead of the Ulster Bowl rugby league (132) and Latvian rugby league (120) but they are growing leagues and might now be above the American rugby union. The American rugby league at over 800 seems more popular [4] hint the American league is ranked at 201, so scroll down the bottom --Ehinger222 09:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Those statistics are unfounded and from a dubious source. Please see WP:RS. Thanks hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On what basis is that site a dubious and unreliable source? The figures for RL that season match up perfectly and so do the figures for AFL, premier league soccer, NFL, Currie cup, NPC, rugby super league, guinness premiership etc. You were trying to call me ignorant, and so there, I have layed out the facts, and than without any type of genuine reason or sourced reply you claim the source is dubious. IT IS NOT DUBIOUS FROM ANYTHING THAT I HAVE SEEN. Provide some evidence of its dubiousness. I am being more than reasonable here and you are displaying an absolute intolerance of reason or evidence. If you have some contrary evidence, PROVIDE IT. --Ehinger222 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds...rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." --WP:LIVING. Daniel.Bryant 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the site is dubious is the controversial claim here. It was the only place on the internet that I could find that gave any evidence at all about attendance at the US rugby super league and its figures line up exactly with the other competitions for 2004. There is no more evidence about the league's notability except its grand final stadium. --Ehinger222 14:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.