Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Hi, I do not nessecarily disagree with you, but can you outline where the copyright is, where the copyright was from, and why the figures were deleted. Agree that section needs a massive re-write. But the whole article was good IMO. --Ehinger222 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do we need to have each game's results on the main page when they are on the individual WC pages as well?--dan, dan and dan 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not sure who added it but it looks absolutely terrible, lacks proper grammar and punctuation copied directly from RL1908.com and only shows Australia's results. It should be removed, especially compared to the RU World Cup page which is featured on Wikipedia right now Pcpp 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

A Google search suggests the NZ Maori team didn't fly the flag of New Zealand, but rather a Maori flag. Can anyone ascertain which one they used, and put that flagicon in its rightful place in the list of participating teams? Jess Cully 01:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article mentions nothing of the farcical eligibility rules of international rugby league.

Basically you can play a Rugby League international if your parent or even grandparent was from another country (which represents about half the Australian population). In fact you don't even need physical proof in claiming your ancestry. Which means that professional playes can represent amateur countries that they have otherwise had absolutely nothing to do with. The whole thing is a complete joke. --Spewmaster 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The very same happens in union you tit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelee (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Find some sources and add a bit by all means. No need for a discussion.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

If any sources are found, the Rugby League International Federation article would be a more appropriate place to write about this, RLWC is just one international competition. LunarLander // talk // 12:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, bear in mind that similar rules apply to lots of other sports. --hippo43 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anyone comment why the tournament are not regular event with 8 years between this years and the last one Gnevin (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's because the whole concept is somewhat uninspiring. Only three can win, usually it will be Oz. The Kiwi side in nowadays mostly NRL players, so it's two NRL rep sides, England, and a host of (as alluded to above) mickey mouse teams. Not surprisingly, no one really clamours to sink money into that.

Bollox!

The image Image:Dave Valentine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 1975 World Cup's article states: "No final was held, with Australia being deemed the champions by virtue of finishing on top of the table". Shouldn't the "Results" table in this article reflect that?--Jeff79 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think some research is required. If the "Final challenge match" is regarded as a World Cup match then it should be left as it is, if it is instead regarded as a friendly test match that wasn't a World Cup match then it should be changed to say "League" . Mattlore (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rugby League World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/nrl/story/0,26746,23862653-5003409,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sparc.org.nz/Documents/media%20releases/NZRL-Independent-Review.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060522110308/http://www.rlef.eu.com/newsstory.php?id=184 to http://www.rlef.eu.com/newsstory.php?id=184

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why is this, when the final is scheduled for December 2nd, 2017? Winner and Runner Up should both be listed as TBA as it stands.Grez868 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hint: You're allowed to edit the article, which I've just done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.203.48 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Complete mess that doesn't make sense (how can the UK and Australia both be winners?) and needs deleting 81.108.165.3 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

As per recent changes, rename this article too. The individual articles for each editition need not change though (imo) as that is how it existed then. Then turn "Rugby League World Cup" into a WP:DAB. Thoughts? Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is an overriding primary article, so it should not happen.Fleets (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

That WP:primarytopic is starting to change in its inherent organisation though. The 2021 Rugby League World Cup could mean any one of four different competitions (see disambiguation). It would be wrong to assume men as primary from 2021 onwards given its deliberate organisation and it should be a DAB instead, imo. by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would point you towards the FA CUP, the Challenge Cup, the FIFA World Cup, etc. When there is an overriding primary topic and a very junior topic, or collection of topics then the main does not entertain a move until there is a rationale for that move. Leeds Rhinos Netball, Wasps netball, Harlequins RL, etc. - none of those come close to the primary subject, and as such are nothing more than a hatnote for the very small % of people who are looking for the subjects who are using the primary topic for traction.Fleets (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would London count as having three venues used or four? It depends on whether Wembley is counted as two stadiums or just one. Bcp67 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Bcp67: Two separate stadiums, two separate venues. Mn1548 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Propose 1975 WC should have No Fixed Host like 1985-88 and 1989-92. I think it’s similar to 2020 Uefa European championships that were played in multiple countries Northern Wonder (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Northern Wonder: My issue with that is that the original reason on the page why it was listed as various is because it was a "home and away round robin". However this is false as some so called "home games" weren't at home. England played a "home" game against Wales in Australia, Wales played their "home" game against England in England as well as their "home" game against France. Unlike the 85-92 world cups which were genuinely home and away over a period of three years. And yes there are "various hosts", but it's the same number of hosts in 2000 and they're all listed so I don't see why 1975 should be different. The only reason I can see is that the hosts are across two confederations. Mn1548 (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Mn1548 I’d compare that to the 2020 UEFA European Championship though. Teams in that tournament played ‘home’ games in their own countries but it is listed as pan European. 2000 was UK, Ireland and France although the UK is listed as England, Wales and Scotland, I think tournaments covering two or more confederations should be seen as No fixed host Northern Wonder (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Northern Wonder:Your assessment of Euro 2020 is incorrect. There are no home and away games in the UEFA Euros. All games are technically neutral. In Euro 2020 there were 11 host countries and 24 competing so ever country could not have had there "home" games at home if it was a home and away format. In regards to hosts of the 2000 World Cup, the United Kingdom is not an IRL nation so should not be listed as a host and the home nations that hosted games should be listed instead. In my opinion, I think tournaments pre 1995 (when the UK was an IRL nation), should have the UK listed as the host country. However I can appreciate how this last point can confuse things in regards to the table about how many times each country has hosted. My opinion regarding 1975 is that as it wasn't a proper home and away format the hosts should be listed and putting "various" is unspecific and not helpful. "No host" would be better but I don't agree with it as, as I've said, 1975 wasn't a true home and away format. Mn1548 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

If re-expanding DO NOT group fourth places finishes to quarter finals:

• Quarter Finals are TOP EIGHT
• Semi Finals are TOP FOUR

A FOURTH PLACE FINISH IS EQUIVALENT OF A SEMI FINAL as you have to play a semi final to finish fourth! Mn1548 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply