Template talk:Infobox rugby biography

Infobox ideas and changes

Player image.jpg caption
Personal information
Full name	Joe Bloggs Junior
Date of birth	(1980-01-01)1 January 1980
Place of birth	London, England
Date of death	1 January 2020(2020-01-01) (aged 40)
Place of death	Paris, France
Height	1.90 m (6 ft 3 in)
Weight	90 kg (198 lb; 14 st 2 lb)
School	Tonbridge School
University	University of Oxford
Notable relative(s)	Joe Bloggs (father)
Career information
Position(s)	Flanker, Number 8
Role(s)	Referee, Coach, Sporting director
Current team	Crusaders
Youth career Years Team 1994–1998 Saracens Senior career Years Team Apps (Pts) 2000–2004 Saracens 0 (0) 2004–2006 Toulon 0 (0) International career Years Team Apps (Pts) 2000 England U20 0 (0) 2000 England A 0 (0) 2002–2006 England 0 (0) 2005 British & Irish Lions 0 (0) 2006–2008 England 7s 0 (0) Coaching career Years Team 2014–2016 Crusaders (assistant) 2016–2020 Crusaders Refereeing career Years Competition 2010–2012 Super Rugby 2011 Rugby World Cup
Source: [1] Correct as of 6 April 2023

This infobox requires an overhaul, in my opinion. There are so many additional parameters, in my view, that are either unimportant or unneeded. I think it would help make it look much better if we could simplify and enhance its functionality by reducing the quantity of information available.

I've been one to suggest more add-ons in the past, but after observing other players' infoboxes, I can say rugby is lagging behind in developing its own. I've outlined the modifications I believe need to be made below, along with my justifications. Please feel free to comment on whether it ought to be retained or removed. Recent talks and debates have left editors uncertain about what should be included or excluded. Because of this, I'd also like more specific guidelines on what can be included in each field.

• Personal information heading: Almost all sports, including cricket, football, league, basketball, and so forth, have this title above the player's information that pertains to them outside of their professional career. Despite the fact that it's probably not necessary, it does what almost everyone else does and divides the two sections into personal and career.
• Removing spouse, children, and occupation(s): Is it essential to include this information in an athlete's infobox? This could be placed elsewhere in the article and, in my view, isn't all that important to their career. I'm not aware of any other sportsperson infoboxes that provide insight to these details.
• Renaming rugby union career: Since this is a rugby union infobox, we already know that this player's profession is in the sport. Would it be possible to alter the language to something more informative, like "Career information" or "Playing information," comparable to other infoboxes? If this has been written this way to portray the career of a player who represents both codes, may I also propose that we just embed both infoboxes if this is the case. This also prevents numerous editing revisions because one specific editor prefered the other infobox. They both have their own variations and might be the best course of action.
• Removing All Black No: I am aware that this topic was briefly discussed in some way in the past. According to what I've learned, certain national teams are able to provide such links while others are unable to. However, why does the New Zealand national team have the choice to provide these details while other nations do not?
• Deleting amateur team(s), provincial / state sides, super rugby: Similar to my justification for removing several parameters from the personal information section. The "Senior career" category may also include teams listed under the "Provincial / State sides" and "Super Rugby" headings. This, in my opinion, just over-details the infobox and makes it look cluttered. Comparable infoboxes simply group all domestic sides together in one section, which is cleaner and easier. Furthermore, some unions or clubs that users have been attaching beneath "Amateur team(s)" are either unlinked or unable to supply the players' statistics with that specific side since they are not available to the general public. For their own reasons, it is becoming harder and harder to get information recently from reputable sources like It'srugby and ESPN.
• Renaming national team(s): This topic is currently the subject of continuous discussion. Whether it is required or not appears to be a contentious issue of opinion. I believe it should be changed to "International career" for functionality and to keep the headlines consistent. Before, I considered that perhaps choosing a more inclusive term, such as "Representative career", would cover all teams mentioned, including the British & Irish Lions or other multinational teams. However, because there is split opinion about this change, perhaps something like "National career" might be a reasonable compromise.
• Incorporating national sevens team(s) with national team(s): I don't understand why we can't include sevens sides with "National team(s)" as World Rugby provides total matches played and points scored on the international circuit. If teams are added to this area, I suggest including World Rugby’s recognised acronym "7s," to be placed after the country name.
• Renaming teams coached: Again same reasoning as earlier. Although it isn’t critical, but to keep everything consistent maybe consider wording it "Coaching career".
• Miscellaneous add-ons: As you can see, I made a few minor changes to the template on the right. To accommodate different referees and coaches, I first added a "Role(s)" section. Although this is not a critical change, as this information may also be included in the "Position(s)" segment. Second, I've added an additional source option so that editors can place references at the bottom of the infobox rather than all over it. I've also moved the reference to the date the infobox was last updated to the bottom. Last but not least, I've abbreviated the points and appearances and highlighted the text so that readers may hover over it and understand what it means.

Kidsoljah (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Rugby union was amateur for 100 years, the occupation category is for these amateur sportsmen. Much like schools and universities it can be debated about whether that is interesting info for the infobox or not.

The presence of so many dual code players is why it is titled "rugby union career", I am unsure what a change like that would mean in terms of changing profiles that already exist so am neutral on it but would like that fleshing out before any changes. Skeene88 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding athletes who played before the professional era, I see your viewpoint. Would it be reasonable to suggest that those same teams could still be listed in the infobox's "Senior career" parameter? I'm merely making suggestions to clear this infobox of its clutter.

I advise embedding the two sports infoboxes together. If you do that, "Rugby union career" should appear above. If not, it would be simple to change this to do so. It seems redundant to have that heading for the individuals who only play rugby union, in my opinion. Kidsoljah (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in these changes. I think you're trying to solve problems that don't exist. // Hippo43 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

solve problems that don't exist... says the person who is currently heavily campaigning about one of the bullet points this is supposed to fix... Primefac (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not campaigning about anything. I assume the point you mean is about changing National teams to International career? To me, that doesn't really change the meaning of the heading. // Hippo43 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Since there are conflicting views on the matter and I wanted to keep it consistent with other titles, I thought changing it to "National career" or "International career," which are similar to other infobox headings, may be a good compromise. While many others would prefer to include particular other teams, you want the outcome where only quote on quote national teams are added. Why you object to something happening is beyond me. Kidsoljah (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Compromise between what? I only "object" because I don't think there is a problem, and I don't think this solves the problems that anyone else thinks exist. And I don't really have a strong view on it; you're just proposing different words with the same meaning. Why you think this is important to change when there are much bigger problems with rugby articles is beyond me. // Hippo43 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "rugby union infobox" needs changes based on my vast amount of editing to rugby union player infoboxes, and pages relating to the sport. However, I do not believe that the changes need to be too drastic. Just minor changes here or there are sufficient in my opinion. Rugby union is very different to rugby league, however as there are many players from England, Australia and New Zealand, etc. that change between the sports there are many players know that have an infobox that is difficult to edit given that there are two seperate infoboxes for the two sports. In my experience, I have given many current rugby union players a rugby union infobox (whom once played rugby league in the past), however the edit was later removed because the rugby league infobox 'took supremacy' over the rugby union infobox, even if the player was no longer active in rugby league. See Israel Folau for example. I see no problem with the "Personal information" section as it currently is in the infobox. However I agree with "Removing spouse, children, and occupation(s):" section as well as renaming the "Rugby union career" section. Regarding the "All Black No.", I personally think it should be expanded to include other tier-one nations like England, South Africa, Ireland, Wales and France, etc. or simply be done away with. I don't agree with "Deleting amateur team(s), provincial / state sides, super rugby:". Although this section of the infobox is generally universal and can be used/adapted by many players whom play in most, if not all, tier-one and tier-two nations, in countries like Australia, South Africa, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Rugby union in New Zealand this is an important section for the infobox. For Australia specifically, pre-1996 players would play for a club rugby side (amateur), would then play for Queensland, New South Wales or the ACT (state side), and possibly the national team. Today this is also still used today as many players from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa play in the Super Rugby, not to mention the South African players that play for a "provincial / state side" in the Currie Cup. Perhaps the section could be adapted, however, to delete this would erase the use of the section, which is still heavily useful today. I agree somewhat with "Renaming national team(s)". I think it should say "International career" for simplicity, and consistency with other infobox sections. Likewise I agree with "Incorporating national sevens team(s) with national team(s)", however unlike the example infobox given above I would personally style it as England sevens (as opposed to England 7s). I would like to see a possible seperate section just for British and Irish Lions players, because of the significance and for its importance to the game. Again I agree with the following section "Renaming teams coached". "Coaching career" or "Coaching information" would be sufficient in my book. For "Miscellaneous add-ons" I don't think anything needs to be added. Like many other sports' infoboxes (Football, Baseball, Field Hockey, Handball) a source or link is not needed, and can be expanded on within the infobox section or article itself, as many articles of the infoboxes just mentioned often do with a "statistics" section. "Refereeing career" should remain as is. MarioBayo (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback has some good points. So you're recommending that the location of the All Blacks' No. be renamed something more inclusive to allow other national teams to link their own? My point in omitting the other parameters such as "Amateur team(s)" and "Super Rugby" is that regardless of the side, they all could belong under "Senior career" as they're teams that the player has represented during his amateur or professional career, but I appreciate your reasoning for keeping them. Lastly, I agree that we could do without the source link add-on. I was thinking that altering the location of references that are all throughout the infobox would be a workaround. Kidsoljah (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Sevens On this issue isn't this a seperate section because it uses different parameters? Typically players appearances aren't referenced so much as the number of tournaments they've been selected for.Skeene88 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do you know if this is still the case? I am aware that in the past they have recognised players who have participated in a specific number of tournaments. However, World Rugby does not make it simple to locate that information, although the appearances and points they offer may make infobox editing simpler. Kidsoljah (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think some of these suggestions have been made without understanding why some things are the way they are . This was also a feature of the discussion at the project talk page.

My thoughts, point by point:

Personal info heading is not necessary. Would be better to remove it from other info boxes. This is meant to be about removing clutter, not adding it.

School and university are trivial and should be removed. This is meant to be about removing clutter, not adding it.

Relatives should only be there if they are notable. If your dad is Andy Farrell or your wife is Rihanna, it should be included.

Occupation should be left for amateur era players.

Rugby Union career heading needs to stay. Kidsoljah, I think you have misunderstood that this infobox includes rugby league and union people.

All Black number (and any other countries') should go because it's trivial.

Amateur clubs, provinces etc needs to stay. It's better, clearer, if these are differentiated.

International career doesn't make much difference in meaning. However, international career suggests this is somehow separate from a player's senior career, like it's a different time frame or something, when it isn't.

Coaching career is better.

Sevens. I don't have a strong view on this. Skeene88 makes a good point in favour of keeping it separate.

Adding "Roles" is pointless, and it's obviously not the same as positions.

Sources should stay where they are so it's clear what info they are supporting.

"Correct as of" should be removed. It should all be up to date. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Kidsoljah: for starting this discussion. In considering this proposal (and similar proposals about rugby biography infoboxes), we should keep in mind what infoboxes are for: 1) it's to summarize key facts relating to  – and milestones in –  a player's rugby career and 2) presenting these facts in a well-organised way that allows readers (non-editors) of the page to identify those facts at a glance. This is more important than bickering over whether some fact (e.g. a team a player has played for) meets someone's interpretation of an infobox heading, or whether an individual editor thinks a particular fact is important to them (i.e. not the player and their career), or not. Cleaning up and updating the infobox is a good idea as some parameters and section headings are unnecessary/outdated and others can be clearer. I'll comment on each part of the infobox proposal below.

• Personal information heading: I don't think it's necessary, because it doesn't really improve the presentation of the key (personal) information.
• As to the different items under "personal information":
  • Occupation: I don't think this is relevant to a player's rugby career, even for players from the amateur era, so I agree with removing this.
  • Spouse: I agree with deleting this. The only argument I see for retaining it is for when the spouse/partner is a notable person in their own right. We could include an item similar to notable relatives and change "spouse" to "notable partner". However, unlike a child/relative who never stops being a player's child/relative, partners can break up a relationship and then the info becomes outdated. I don't think any editor will be willing to stay up-to-date with a player's relationships, so that's why I agree with deletion.
  • Children: I agree with removing children as notable children can be included under "notable relatives".
  • School: this item should definitely be retained as 1st XV rugby is an important stepping stone to senior rugby (as many players are recruited from schools instead of local clubs nowadays). What we could consider is whether schools should only be mentioned if the player has played 1st XV rugby for that school. In that case, should we name the item "school" or "1st XV school"?
  • University: in some countries, there's also a strong relationship between playing for a university team and the following senior career. Japan is a good example, but I think also South Africa? Not sure about others. So while generally speaking the university a player attended may not be relevant, in some countries it may be; that's an argument for retaining it. Again, we could consider only adding a player's university if the player has played for that university's team in a university competition (not: local club competition) that is a stepping stone for senior rugby. Not sure how we could make that clearer in naming the item. Maybe we should call it "university team" instead of "university"? Or is this info to be included under "Youth career" (see below)? Not sure about this.
• Rugby Union career heading: I would be in favour of retaining this as the number of players changing code is too large to remove it. It adds clarity.
• Removing All Blacks number: I agree with this. The number links to the online All Blacks player profile and I think that if the All Blacks number is removed, an effort should be made to include that link in the main text, in the section "external links" (if it isn't there already).
• Deleting amateur team(s), provincial / state sides, super rugby:
  • I don't agree with removing amateur teams from the infobox (if that's indeed intended by this proposal) for players that played in the amateur era. Amateur teams, separately listed under a sub-heading "Amateur career", can be left empty for players from the professional era. If no data about appearances or points scored is available, this can remain empty (not a "0").
  • There's no proposal to delete the sub-heading/section Youth career from the infobox. What exactly is this? How relevant is it? If we keep it, would "youth career" include the Super Rugby U20 competition in New Zealand? (Not sure whether there's something similar in Australia). This needs clarification.
  • Senior career isn't a new infobox sub-heading and the current template already lists provincial/state and Super Rugby teams under this sub-heading. Separate sub-headings only still appear in older player's articles (or have been mistakenly used for more recently created player biographies) and it would be great if that could be merged into one "senior career" section. So it isn't about deleting these teams from the infobox as some may think; it is about deleting the separate sub-headings and merging these sides under one sub-heading "senior career". This is a good example of removing/avoiding unnecessary clutter as there are plenty of players who move from one competition (e.g. Super Rugby) to the other (e.g. a European or Japanese competition).
• Renaming national team(s) to 'International career': I agree that this is more consistent with the other headings and also clearer. While "national team(s)" doesn't have, and shouldn't have, the narrow definition that some editors appear to adhere to (in previous discussions), the heading "International career" seems to be able to avoid that narrow interpretation. To prevent misinterpretation by (future) editors, the template documentation should, however, clearly contain the guideline that "international career" covers any team that uses eligibility criteria, selects players from the entire country and plays matches against teams of other countries meeting these same features and are widely regarded as important teams in a player's career (I refer again to the purpose of infoboxes). That would include the Māori All Blacks and the other teams mentioned in the proposal, but - for example - not the North Island and South Island, Possibles and Probables, or invitational teams. By the way, I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but if a country has an official schoolboy team (e.g. New Zealand Schools), that should be included, too.
• Incorporating national sevens team(s) with national team(s): I agree with this as long as it doesn't mean that medals sections relating to – for example – the Olympics or Commonwealth Games are deleted. I also see the problem raised by @Skeene88: that we usually list the number of tournaments played in sevens, not the number of games (appearances).
• Renaming teams coached: I agree with renaming this heading to "Coaching career".
• Miscellaneous add-ons:
  • I disagree with adding the Roles parameter. It adds clutter, isn't needed and  – due to its proposed location in the infobox – could cause confusion to the reader. The "years" part of their careers also provides enough clues as to what their current role is. By the way, "positions" refers to playing positions only, so cannot be used for coaches and referees.
  • I disagree with adding another source option. It adds clutter. By the way, if you need to source something in the infobox, consider first including the information in the text, before adding a reference.
  • the tooltips providing an explanation of the abbreviations: the explanation of 'Apps' and 'Pts' under "Internatonal career" should be changed to "international appearances" and 'international points'. The current tooltip could again lead to misinterpretations.
  • Correct as of should be retained. Whilst infoboxes should be up-to-date, it's an unfortunate reality that many infoboxes are not. It should be clear to the reader of a player biography at which date the stats in the infox were last updated. "Correct as of" does provide that clarity. Ruggalicious (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Senior career point here is the key one. A big reason why the infoboxes are a mess is because there are not enough editors and that means there are huge numbers of pages with previously depreciated parameters see (Category:Infobox rugby biography with deprecated parameters) 6,000 odd at the moment. This also means new editors often accidentally use the old depreciated parameters making it worse. That's before people that never accepted some of the old changes persist in using depreciated styles like separating Super Rugby out from senior career.

RE: Source you say adding "another" source option, but currently there is nowhere in the infobox to put a source. Football & cricket have these as way of comparison. Skeene88 (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right, but that doesn't change my opinion that – in principle – information should be referenced in the text. If, in exceptional cases, a reference in the infobox is necessary, it should included immediately after the data that the reference is supporting; not at the bottom of the infobox. Ruggalicious (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• One note, one comment/thought. Note is that I've BOLDly changed "Teams coached" to "Coaching career" per the feedback here. The comment/thought: the 2013 discussion to change the template had each suggestion in a separate subheader, mainly to keep the discussion on each point clear and separate. Before this thread gets too out-of-hand, I would like to suggest/request that we do this. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

After allowing this discussion on the suggested adjustments run for a time, I've updated the list of areas where there seemed to be some support for change. Please add a comment below each category outlining your support or opposing views before moving on. The most recent feedback indicates that there isn't much desire in adding a "Personal information" header because it would just add additional clutter without making any improvements. It appeared that everyone was against changing the name of "Rugby union career" due to the large number of players who participate in both rugby union and other codes. Additionally, keeping the "National sevens team(s)" separate from the "National team(s)" was preferred over adding more add-ons or merging them. Kidsoljah (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing spouse, children, and occupation(s)

The conversation on this subject was productive. The majority of editors seemed to be in favour of deleting spouses and children. It was pointed out that including information about a player's spouse and children in the infobox is a little overkill and that only notable relatives ought to remain. Some people may consider schools and universities to be unimportant, but in most nations, they serve as a stepping stone to senior rugby, so knowing this knowledge might be crucial. The occupation category is debatable because some people want to preserve it for players during the amateur era.

• Support – As I've already said, I don't think this is information that should be included in an athlete's infobox. I believe that this belongs elsewhere in the article and isn't really crucial to their career. Kidsoljah (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Partial support - delete spouse & children section. Make it part of the project's style guide that occupation is to only be included for amateur era players. I would accept deleting occupation though and see the point that this can easily be added to the prose of articles if not already included.Skeene88 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing All Black No

Most people are of the mind that this should not be in the infobox and that the link should be placed somewhere in the main text.

• Support – I don't see why other countries do not have the option to disclose these facts when the New Zealand national team does. I believe that you should either permit all countries to provide this information or not at all. Kidsoljah (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Skeene88 (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparently this carried, as I am currently receiving the errors "Page using Template:Infobox rugby biography with unknown parameter 'allblackno'" and "Page using Template:Infobox rugby biography with unknown parameter 'allblackid'" while editing Walter Drake (to give you an idea of my level of rugby, I was looking for the American gift catalog company). However, the parameters are still described in the documentation. Please add a conclusion here so that I (and anyone after me) can be certain. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected, feel free to edit as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleting amateur team(s), provincial / state sides, super rugby

The majority of people are in favour of preserving "Amateur team(s)", but regardless of the era the player competed, "Provincial / state sides", and "Super Rugby" are all teams that can be incorporated beneath "Senior career". Less clutter and fewer sub-headings in the infobox would make it easier to read. Like Ruggalicious suggests, it's not about removing these teams from the infobox as you may believe, but rather about removing the individual sub-headings and combining these teams under the single sub-heading "Senior career".

• Support – I think there are too many sub-headings in this section, so I'd like to clear it up. Comparable infoboxes essentially combine all domestic sides into a single part, which is more visually pleasing and practical. However I can see why editors would want to maintain the "Amateur team(s)" for players competing before the professional era. Kidsoljah (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support with comment - I believe this is already the preferred style per the project's style guide; it is just getting editors onto the same page to actually do it. Perhaps depreciating the parameters formally will help with this. It is a lot of work to update the many profiles.Skeene88 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose -- This is an example that reflects a lack of understanding of the differences between rugby in different places, but also at different times. "Senior career" is an undefined term that is used here and there but is completely undefined. If someone could provide me a definition of what constitutes a "senior career" in France, New Zealand, South Africa and England for example, then maybe it would be easier. Club, provincial, and super rugby are quite clearly different in New Zealand for example, or club & provincial rugby in South Africa. -- Shudde^talk 16:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Renaming national team(s)

Regarding this adjustment, there has been a range of reactions. Few are in favour of leaving it as is, however a great deal would prefer to modify it to "International career" or "National career" so that it is consistent with the following sub-headings.

• Support – I believe it should be changed to "International career" for functionality and to keep the headlines consistent. Kidsoljah (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Referee Comps

Nika Amashukeli has more than 10 referee competitions. Can some one who understands how to add parameters extend refereecomp & refereeapps parameters up to 20? Skeene88 (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Syntax eror

There is a syntax error in the template. I'm not sure of the intention of the if check, which is why I didn't fix it myself.

 
|<div class="fn">{{{name|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}</div>{{#if:{{{honorific_suffix|}}referee}|<div class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal; display:inline;">{{{honorific_suffix|}}}</div>}}

The error is at the {{{honorific_suffix|}}referee}. Placing the word "referee" inside the if check would just make it always true so that seems incorrect. Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's awkward.  Fixed. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Bias towards recent rugby in design of template

Hi. I'd just like to point out that many of the well meaning changes that are often proposed and sometimes made to this template reflect a bias in thinking about rugby union only as it's been organised and played in recent decades. Please remember that the sport has been played internationally for over 150 years, and therefore differs considerably in how it is and has been organised and played quite considerably between time and place! One example

• The use of the term "senior career" which doesn't seem to be defined anywhere as far as I can tell; this is probably because there is no universal definition. In many places the term "First class rugby" is used to define what I believe people mean by "Senior rugby", but this definition varies by nation. In New Zealand the definition runs several pages! See [1] In South Africa there are also definitions for what first class means, see [2].
• Please lets not just think in terms of the professional era. Some ideas propose restricting appearances figures for clubs or other sides to "Competition appearances" -- this might be a good faith attempt to make it clear that pre-season/warm-up matches are excluded, but for most of their history for example there was no "competition" for Saracens F.C. or Auckland or the New South Wales Waratahs, all three organised matches on an ad hoc basis rather than as a part of a competition.

I thought I would just add this comment as food for thought. I've spent more time than most editors in the topic working on historical articles regarding rugby rather than contemporary topics, so I do notice these small but significant things faster than most. -- Shudde^talk 16:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've thought on and off about this over the years. We can either get super-granular, maybe not going so far as to have a header for every competition out there but allowing for the aforementioned regional/national/sub-national/provincial/etc variations, OR we go super-general, with little more than a "Playing career" header and the player career set out sorted by year with no other splits. From a coding and maintenance perspective, I am a fan of the latter, if only because it means fewer chances for people putting things in the wrong places (which they already do with our already-simplified template!). Primefac (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But I think having some headers can make otherwise very long lists of teams/clubs less unwieldy as long as the number of possible headings is not too long and is kept relatively logical. At the moment there are basically three categories: club (for some reason professional & amateur are separate even though I don't think the difference is always clear, or even neccessary), domestic representative (provincial, state, county), and international representative. The reason it makes some sense is a player could play for all these teams during a single season. The only awkward exception to this is super rugby teams but that applies only to New Zealand and sometimes to South African teams (although maybe also teams like the Drua, Jaguares etc,). An example of what I mean is Buck Shelford -- although the list of notable teams is actually not complete within the infobox. -- Shudde^talk 10:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As commented earlier on the proposals above, "Senior career" isn't a new infobox sub-heading and the current template already lists clubs, provincial/state and Super Rugby teams under this sub-heading. Separate sub-headings only still appear in older player's articles (or have been used for more recently created player biographies by mistake). In other words, "Senior career" is already in use as a sub-heading and "clubs", "provincial/state/county" and "Super Rugby" haven't been separate categories for a while now.

I wouldn't be in favour of again another change, or a reversal of the current practice which has "Senior career" as a sub-heading. Too many changes mean too many potential causes of confusion for current and new editors, and too little consistency. Ruggalicious (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)