Jump to content

Talk:European Rugby Champions Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename Suggestion

[edit]

I suggest this page be renamed "European Rugby Champions Cup", as this is the official title of the tournament. As the tournament is new, a colloquial name has yet to be established. European Cup and Champions Cup will probably both be used. Rugby Champions Cup was the working title of a previously proposed tournament. Kieranfp (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively a new page could be created, as this page originally related to the PRL/LNR proposed tournament (Rugby Champions Cup), but now seems mainly to relate to the compromise tournament agreed to replace both the RCC and the Heineken Cup (European Rugby Champions Cup) Kieranfp (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I were to pick an option there, it would be the first... I see what you are saying about it almost being about a different tournament, but there is no point IMO having an article on the original breakaway tornament, as the tournament never came to fruition in that sense.
However, personally, I don't yet see a point in changing the title, unless it becomes obvious RCC isn't going to become a more colloquial name, as I think people are only emphasising European right now to make the point that it's a different competition. To be honest, even if the colloquial name did become something like "Champions Cup" for example, I'd be inclinced to name the article "Rugby Champions Cup" as I'm pretty sure there's some other competition called the Champions Cup.
So, I'd say maybe hold off for a little while, but thats just my opinion... HitmanStanners (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not almost a different tournament. It is a different tournament. The RCC was a proposal that never came to fruition. The ERCC is a new tournament to replace the Heineken Cup. It includes many elements proposed by the architects of the RCC but is not the same thing. The rather unwieldly name is as a result of combining the names European Rugby Cup and Rugby Champions Cup. For Wikipedia to adopt one of those names as a synonym for the combination would be to take a side in the dispute, thus contravening its neutrality. Kieranfp (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who will be the main sponsor of this "new" competition: It's basically the Heineken Cup again. LOL --84.227.245.159 (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Champions Cup/Heineken Cup pages

[edit]

Can I suggest that the old Heineken Cup page be merged into this page (and perhaps a separate history section split off within the page) on the basis that the new competition is a clear continuation of the old one: all of the champions back to the inaugural competition in 1996 are listed on the Champions Cup website (see here), as well as historic pool tables, full statistics by team, and archived video footage. Not to mention the large banner on this page stating "20 years of European Club Rugby", while the Elite Awards have been maintained and incorporate both Heineken Cup and Champions Cup appearances. This would correspond with the template used by the UEFA Champions League which consists of a single page to describe both it and the pre-1992 European Champion Clubs' Cup. --CTC (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to point out, the French Wikipedia uses only one page for both iterations of the competition: Coupe d'Europe de rugby à XV. --CTC (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, while I'm not too bothered, I like the way it is right now, it almost makes it clearer, and in that sense dont see the point in changing the status quo. I think the Heineken Cup page is really good, while this maybe not so much yet, so in that sense maybe it may be nice to keep them seperate... And, it is always nice to be a bit different to the French :P !
It is an intersesting issue though, and to considering your points, there have been 20 years of European Club Rugby - that is a statement of fact, not necessarily relating to a competition. Also, the Champions League is a slightly different case, as it was simply a change in the branding of the Competition, which has always been organised by UEFA. In this instance, there is a new organiser (ERC > EPCR)... While this isn't exactly the be all and end all, it does make it different, and it was the organisers choice as to whether to refer to previous winners and awards, they could have, a la Premier League, ignored past European competition history, and, as devils advocate, they could simply have the previous tournaments statistics as a portal to the past competition, as the old website no longer exists... HitmanStanners (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new competition does not feel like a clear continuation of the old one to many rugby fans in Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales for various reasons, including reduced representation, different governing body etc.
If you want a generic page that includes both competitions, then it should have a generic title, such as "European club rugby competitions". This is a generic term rather than the name of a specific competition.84.92.93.214 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not really a new competition, its just been re branded and reformatted. A merge should take place. There isn't separate articles for the Home Nations, Five Nations and Six Nations or the Tri Nations and The Rugby Championship, why should this be any different. Merge articles then create a history section, and where we list the finals, split that into two section - 1 for Heineken Cup winner one for ERCC title. Rugby.change (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point that the organisers have changed (in name only I might add), but I think the key point is that the organisers themselves have decided to maintain and combine the Heineken Cup history with the new Champions Cup. As such if we were to separate the two here, we would be presenting an entirely different history and set of statistics from those on the competition's own website which wouldn't make sense. --CTC (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with the merger, i vote Yes Brio (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a consensus has emerged with the last few comments I'm going to go ahead and merge the pages. --CTC (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly call a total of 5 comments (3 for and 2 against) a consensus... But, there we go... At least make reference to the Heineken Cup name in the template. -- HitmanStanners (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Rugby Champions 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European Rugby Champions 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Rugby Champions 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saracens

[edit]

Saracens have been found to be in serious breach of Premiership rules re that league's salary cap for each of the last three seasons. They have been fined £5.3m and docked 35 points (currently under appeal). That is significant for this article because qualification for the European competetion is dependent on success in teams' respective domestic leagues. Omitting the salient, verifiable and reliably sourced facts would be whitewashing and in breach of WP:NPOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay2K3 can you actually engage, rather than blind reverting? Per MOS:LEAD the lede should summarise the article. Relevant, sourced material about a significant recent event is relevant for the article, is included, and is now summarised in the lead. While I can understand you wanting to remove that, doing so with the edit summary you left while also inexplicably reverting other changes, such as the hyperbole language used for Leinster's previous season? Makes no sense. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the tournament organisers impose a sanction on Saracens, there is no need to emphasise it here. They have been sanctioned (subject to appeal) by PRL whose rules they have been found to have breached. There has been no comments by EPCR and they have not broken any rule of EPCR. noq (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Er, there has been comment by EPCR... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has been comment, yes, and they said that Saracens' European Cup record will not be taken away. This does not warrant mentioning in the opening section of the article. – PeeJay 14:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from my talk page, and my response]:

Why are you so obsessed with mentioning this salary cap situation in the lead of the article? It doesn't pertain to the European Cup, and even if it did, it certainly doesn't warrant mentioning at the top of an article that is supposed to be an overview of the competition as a whole. I've tried to meet you halfway, but you clearly seem to have issues with regard to ownership of this article. You should probably also look at what other edits I made at the same time because you're actively making the article worse by making blind reverts. – PeeJay 13:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessed? Hardly. I'm merely the person who added relevant facts, and didn't see fit to ignore this talk page section, didn't ignore the notice on someone's talk page about discussing things at an article's page rather than a userpage. What's that about? Anyone - see WP:MOSLEAD. The lede should summarise the article. And actually it was your blind revert that re-introduced a load of hyperbole about Leinster, but sure. The other parts you're changing are incorrect, too. E.g., Heineken aren't "running the competition alongside the EPCR" - they're just the title sponsor. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, let's fix those bits separately. But if you think that Saracens' breaking of the Premiership salary cap is relevant to this article, you're going to have to substantiate that. Yes, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would come to this article expecting to find anything about another competition's regulations in the opening section. That is just nonsense. – PeeJay 17:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, leave it out of the lede then. The EPCR finding it necessary to release a statement about Saracens' European record is obbiously justification enough for its inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it though? Their statement was essentially a non-statement, confirming that nothing was happening. Saracens' situation has no effect on how they performed in the European Cup. You could argue that they shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that is outside of EPCR's purview. – PeeJay 11:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Rugby_Champions_Cup&oldid=1207150181"