Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Squad

This is transcluded from our respective talk pages:

Hey, I reverted your changes of the All Blacks squad. The squad Henry announced was simply a training squad. The reason he had the squad is because there is only one week between the Final of the Super 14 and the Ireland Test. The actual Test squad will be announced following the Super 14 final (Sunday 1 June). The training group doesn't include any Crusaders (rugby) who will be playing on Saturday. I understand why you thought it was the All Blacks squad, but unfortunately not! Sorry about this, but the training squad and Test squad are completely different. - Shudde talk 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I detailed that it was a training squad, a much more accurate squad than the WC squad from 2007. I noted that the Crusaders players were left in, you are more than welcome to remove them and put a note in stating that they are not included at this moment in time.Londo06 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The heading is current squad. This isn't the current squad, what it is is a training group that definitely includes players that will not be in the squad when it's announced next week. The notes you have added to not make it at all clear that this is not an All Blacks squad, and if one didn't know better, they would think it was. On top of that, you have put several players province as their Super 14 team; traditionally a player is associated primarily with their province, not their Super 14 side. So at the moment what we have is players there that will not be in next weeks squad, and then incorrect info regarding their provinces (plus inconsistencies with that). - Shudde talk 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes, but would like another opinion. My concern is that at best this is a speculative squad, and at worst it's crystal ball gazing. The last official squad was the RWC one, so I don't see what's wrong with leaving it there until the next official squad is announced. - Shudde talk 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated to show train-on squad. Alexsanderson83 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah except now we have changed a section title, so if there were any piped links, such as All Blacks#Current squad have now gone dead. The real squad is announced in three days. Plus, there is still a mixture of the provincial and Super 14 teams listed beside the player's names—which apart from being inconsistent and confusing, is wrong. Traditionally, the players are announced with their province, not their Super 14 team being their affiliated team. Of course, this team wasn't officially announced, because it's not the Test squad. - Shudde talk 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, who's smart idea was it to have a + next too Sione Lauaki; why is this necessary/relevant and why is he the only one, when many of them didn't participate in last year's tri nations? - Shudde talk 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that there is no point messing about with the training squad. The actual 2008 squad will be announced in, what, three days? And then we can add it to the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, fiddling over up-to-the-minute information on who was selected to train in the week leading up to the squad announcement really does nothing to improve this encyclopedia article. --Stormie (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. - Shudde talk 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
To be precise: the squad will be announced on Sunday June 1st at 10:00AM New Zealand time.[1] --Stormie (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree with the crystal-balling idea. Gone through the recent edits and this one removes the Crusaders players from 2007, and it also deals with the technicality that the squad is in training, even if the language is a little too Australian for my liking.Londo06 12:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. Also the players are now associated with their Super 14 team which is wrong. Like Stormie said, this is an encyclopaedia, and the inclusion of the training squad is non-encyclopaedic. Many of these players (up to ten or twelve) won't be included on the squad announced on Sunday, plus the section name has still been changed (bad idea). - Shudde talk 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with where you are coming from entirely.Londo06 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You disagree because you disagree that Wikipedia should not be a news service? Or because you feel that a list of names of people who trained for a week in the leadup to the squad announcement has lasting encyclopedic value? --Stormie (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Final squad has been announced and added to the article, can we lay this to rest now? --Stormie (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We can.Londo06 10:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Home grounds map

The map is not accurate; Waikato and the Auckland stadiums are displaced to the west. Having such a map is a good idea though. While the existing map can be easily fixed, I suggest replacing it with a map constructed using the {{Location map+}} and {{Location map~}} templates. An example can be seen at List of schools in West Coast, New Zealand. The advantage of these templates is that they are based on latitude and longitude rather than pixels, so it becomes trivial to resize the map. It may be possible to show both Eden Park and North Harbour Stadium separately on the map by putting the labels on opposite sides of the dots.-gadfium 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be renamed?

Just wondering, since both the South Africa national rugby union team and Australia national rugby union team articles do not use their nicknames in the title. I propose that this be moved to New Zealand national rugby union team, and the intro be modified accordingly, to match with other countries' national sports teams. 206.248.181.239 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Extensively discussed already. Please read Talk:All Blacks/Archive 1#Naming of this article and familiarize yourself with the arguments. --Stormie (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Per before, it is where it belongs. Alexsanderson83 11:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the project page at the moment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Move All blacks to New Zealand national rugby union team noq (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was move to New Zealand national rugby union team for reasons of consistency of naming format (i.e. why use the nickname for one team but not others). Note that the !votes from this discussion were also considered. Regarding the Wikipedia:Naming conventions#All Blacks section, this was added by a single editor seemingly without discussion back in June 2007. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


All Blacks → New Zealand national rugby union team — First, "All Blacks" is a nickname, and no other national rugby union team's article is titled by a nickname. Moving this article to New Zealand national rugby union team not only avoids the nickname issue, but also lends a modicum of consistency to all of the national rugby union team articles. Second, "All Blacks" is not a descriptive title. We should assume that the reader of any article knows nothing about the subject, and therefore we should not assume that "All Blacks" is a common-enough term that it will be automatically associated with the New Zealand national rugby union team. A consensus for this move has already been established at the rugby union WikiProject, so this move should be fairly procedural. — – PeeJay 19:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • The Wikipedia naming convention for sports teams currently states The New Zealand national rugby union team are almost always referred to as the All Blacks in New Zealand and the article is thus titled as a result; this is a special case. (However, in formal rugby articles like the World Cup results sections, give scores like "New Zealand 28 - 17 South Africa" not "All Blacks 28 - 17 South Africa".) Station1 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If that is what the naming convention for sports teams states, then the person who wrote it doesn't seem to know what they're talking about. Yes, I'm sure that the New Zealand national rugby union team is most commonly referred to as the All Blacks in New Zealand, but what about in the rest of the world? Sure, there will be people who know the team as the All Blacks, but as a Brit, I can assure you that most people in Britain would refer to the team as "New Zealand". Long story short, the NC needs rewriting. – PeeJay 13:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The naming convention [for all articles] says: This page in a nutshell - - Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers. - Titles should be brief without being ambiguous. - Titles should make linking to the article simple.

For all these reasons, the article should be moved. I can't find any discussion about the 'special case' of the All Blacks. Who wrote this part of the naming convention? Has it ever been discussed on that page?

The convention also says - The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. For non-New Zealanders and non-rugby fans (ie a general audience) 'All Blacks' is clearly not the most commonly used name. As for ambiguity, when 'All Black' is used in a non-rugby context, (as in the David Kirk example) there is obvious potential for confusion.

Disagree. Australians who are not particularly Rugby fans, for example, would have heard of this team mainly through news headlines. In this context, the term All Blacks is almost universal. I suspect that the same goes for other countries too. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course many people, Australian and otherwise, have heard the term 'All Blacks'. This doesn't make it the most commonly used or understood term. You said 'In this context, the term All Blacks is almost universal.' Says who? Do you have a source for this? IMO, serious news reports and listings of results generally refer to New Zealand, as that is the team's name.
My source is simply reading the newspapers, and on a talk page that's acceptable evidence (unlike in an article, where WP:OR and verifiability restrictions are stronger).
Again, this article should be titled with a general audience in mind. Could someone who knows nothing about rugby explain the difference, for example, between the All Blacks and one of the other NZ representative teams?
The majority of English speakers (215 million out of 330 million in total) live in the USA. Most of these people have no specific interest in rugby union, much less the All Blacks. Would these people understand the term 'All Blacks', or the meaning of 'David Kirk, ex-All Black captain'? Of course not. For a general audience, 'New Zealand national rugby union team' is unambiguous and the only sensible choice. hippo43 (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you may mean the majority of native English speakers. English Wikipedia is written for all English speakers. Also, please bear in mind that this discussion is about the article name. The example you give seems to be about phrasing in the text, rather about than the article name. Finally, as to whether the proposal is less ambiguous, maybe not... The Rugby sevens team that plays in the Rugby World Cup Sevens could for example be seen as an example of a New Zealand national rugby union team. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I left out 'native' for brevity. However, do you really think non-native English speakers will be more likely to understand 'All Blacks'??
Hmmmm, so you were deliberately quoting figures that are not directly relevant, and relying on the unstated assumption that the figures for all English speakers would be at least as favourable, is that right? I think it's up to you to justify your assumptions. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The figures for both native and non-native speakers are directly relevant. You haven't addressed the substantive points here. First, the majority of native English speakers will not recognize the term 'All Blacks'. If you disagree, can you explain why?
I haven't expressed an opinion either way, and see no need to as the point is irrelevant anyway.
Moreover, I don't believe that anyone could seriously make a case that non-native English speakers (apart from any non-native speakers in New Zealand) would be any more likely to recognize it. In the case of non-native English speakers, a descriptive, self-explanatory title is clearly even more preferable.hippo43 (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody needs to make a case. The onus is on you to substantiate your points, and you haven't. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
My examples both relate to the article name - Americans would not generally understand 'All Blacks' as an article title, or a link to this article from 'David Kirk, All Black'.
Again, I'm interested to know why you think this. So far as an article on David Kirk, All Black is concerned, there seems some confusion as to whether or not the naming of other articles should be discussed here. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No confusion on my part. To be clear, I'm not discussing renaming any other articles - not the Haka, not David Kirk.
The suggestion was made at the project page that a link (not an article) titled 'David Kirk, Rhodes scholar, World Cup winning All Black captain and CEO Fairfax (Australia)' would be confusing. I agree. A general audience of English speakers (native or non-native) would be very unlikely to recognize what this meant.
Therefore, using the title 'New Zealand national rugby union team' would be preferable, in line with the naming convention which requires 'making linking to those articles easy and second nature'. hippo43 (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm, you say you're not discussing it and then continue discussing it. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
As for the argument that it could be confused for other teams, the same could be said for every other country, and every other sport. You could also argue that 'All Blacks' could be confused with the Junior All Blacks, or other teams called All Blacks [such as Neath...] or could be confusing because it also refers to non-international p;ayers. hippo43 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Both the existing and proposed names are possibly subject to this hypothetical confusion. So it's not a very strong argument either way, but if anything it supports the existing name. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument that 'NZ national rugby team' could be misunderstood (because it applies to Sevens teams etc) is irrelevant - the same could be said for every other country, and every other sport. 'All Blacks' itself is not exactly synonymous with 'NZ national rugby team' - it is also used in New Zealand to mean players and teams playing in non-international games.

Also, the argument that 'All Blacks' is somehow the 'official name' because it has been trademarked is nonsense. The 'official name' in international matches is 'New Zealand'.

Consensus has been reached at the project page, and the discussion has been ongoing there for over a month. This article should just be moved now. hippo43 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a case where it's particularly important to follow the process, rather than end the discussion here prematurely by moving it now. This move, if it goes ahead, is overturning several previous consensus decisions. It probably represents part of a gradual long-term shift in Wikipedia policy towards paying more attention to official names in article naming. And it's an important precedent, as it concerns a featured article.
You're making some good points above. Thanks for using the discussion area for them, rather than cluttering up the poll. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on the project page was certainly necessary before this move could have any chance of success, and you achieved it. Well done. Next step is consensus here. Suggest that a slightly less confrontational style might help. You have some good arguments, why clutter them up with others that aren't nearly so well thought out? (See above and below for examples, there are others.) Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggest that a slightly less patronising style might help.hippo43 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Patronising is a personal attack. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? It's not a personal attack, it's an attack on your writing style - I suggest you give it some thought. 'Patronising' isn't mentioned here - personal attack.
I said "Suggest that a slightly less patronising style might help." You said "Suggest that a slightly less confrontational style might help." If one is a personal attack, so is the other.
It is the second suggestion of personal attacks that you've made in this discussion. Earlier, you claimed PeeJay's assertion that 'the person who wrote it doesn't seem to know what they're talking about' was a personal attack. That is no more a personal attack than your contribution 'why clutter them up with others that aren't nearly so well thought out?'hippo43 (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You've obviously read the policy on personal attacks, and you obviously don't think it means what I think it means. I still think these are both personal attacks, as Wikipedia uses the term. Agree that my comment regarding confrontation was close to the line, and as it didn't seem to help I was wrong to make it in hindsight. I think patronising is a lot stronger than confrontational, and apologise if any offence was taken to my comment. My comment on some arguments being better than others starts out with a positive assessment of those other arguments, and I think in context it's not a personal attack at all, as it's focussed on the contribution not the contributor. But again it didn't help, so I'll try to do better.
As to your point that patronising isn't mentioned at WP:ATTACK, that's quite correct. And neither are many, many other words that would even more clearly be personal attacks. There's no attempt made to list them there, for very good reasons. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

From the poll above If most people started calling the United States national men's soccer team "The Scum", would we then move the United States national men's soccer team article to The Scum?. This is an emotional and illogical argument. We tend to assume that the scum is a derogatory term, and I think this is a key reason for the choice of this as an example so let's make that assumption. Then, this is a completely different scenario. The All Blacks and their supporters seem to love the name All Blacks. The Haka of the All Blacks, for example, is never called anything else AFAIK, either by supporters or opponents. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Untrue, it is only ever called "the haka" in the Northern Hemisphere as nobody has ever seen or heard about any other other haka (unless the "kaha of the Kiwis" needs its own article).GordyB (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please reread my post. The name I was discussing is Haka of the All Blacks, not the Haka. I also think this is a bit dismissive of Northern Hemisphere culture. It's possibly called the Haka in a context of Rugby, and that would be fair enough. But even so I suspect that many Rugby fans would know that the Haka is not a Rugby invention. I could be wrong. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I read it the first time. Firstly nobody has suggested changing "haka of the all blacks" and secondly people might be aware that the haka is not a rugby invention but have no reason to be aware that there is more than one haka.GordyB (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's get this straight... They think there's only one Haka, the one for the All Blacks, but they don't think it's a Rugby invention? Is that really what you're proposing? Kind of a stretch, isn't it?
As to your first point, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Articles with the term All Black in the title be moved to New Zealand in the title. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The haka is not mentioned in the suggestion and I don't see that the title could be improved on other than to move it to Haka (rugby). Whilst you might find it difficult to believe, people in the Northern Hemisphere have contact with Maori culture whatsoever other than via rugby. 99.99% of people would not know that "haka" is a general term that covers several dances rather than being one specific war dance that among other things is used at rugby games.GordyB (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The article at Haka of the All Blacks is quite clearly covered by the phrase Articles with the term All Black in the title, so it is mentioned. It's not individually mentioned. Is this important?
Moving the article to Haka (ruby) would avoid introducing the term New Zealand, as proposed, but I don't see any advantage to this.
Whilst you might find it difficult to believe is of course another personal attack. Please consider.
What follows seems to be baseless speculation, particularly the 99.99% figure. Where does it come from? Andrewa (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
AndrewA, you're right - that is an emotional argument, but so is your point that 'The All Blacks and their supporters seem to love the name All Blacks' That is true, but is no basis for titling this article. It is in direct opposition to the naming convention which, again, supports naming articles for the benefit of a general, not specialist, audience.
Disagree that there's any conflict between the naming convention and the current name, and if there was I think we'd have discovered it long before this... the convention hasn't changed in any way that would affect this, for a long time now.
Agree that 'The All Blacks and their supporters seem to love the name All Blacks' would be an emotional argument if it were to be offered as an argument in favour of the current name, but it wasn't... it was offered as an argument that the example given of the scum was irrelevant, and I think that point stands.
IMO, rugby fans generally refer to simply 'the Haka'. There's no ambiguity about whose haka it is, and it should have no bearing on naming this article. hippo43 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it depends on the context. I didn't even know the haka existed until some of the New Zealanders in an Australian prison I was visiting (long story) were invited to perform it for us. They called it "The Haka of the All Blacks", and I certainly knew who the "All Blacks" were in that context without Rugby being mentioned. I played Rugby at school and enjoy watching it on TV, but I guess you'd call me less than a fanatic these days.
This is especially relevant because the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Additions to above proposed move appears to be to rename the article on the haka too. Perhaps that should be clarified. Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the title of pages about the Haka should have no bearing on this article being renamed.

And vice versa? That's not what the project page decided. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, you're right that the 'USA...scum' argument is emotional (though maybe not illogical). Whether the subject of an article has fans who like or dislike the title of that article is also not part of the naming convention.

The logic is faulty, agreed? Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not agreed (and irrelevant to the outcome of this discussion). If you substitute the words 'really nice people' for 'scum', the point has some value.hippo43 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No value that I can see. You get If most people started calling the United States national men's soccer team "really nice people", would we then move the United States national men's soccer team article to really nice people?, which seems to have little if any connection to the issues. I'm sure we can make up better scenarios, and not convinced that any of them will be helpful. But these two aren't. Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My point above was only that the argument 'All Blacks fans like the name' is in conflict with the naming convemtion, for the reason given. The wider point, however, that the current article name is not consistent with the naming convention, is exactly what this whole discussion is about.

It would be in conflict if it were to be suggested as an argument in favour of the name All Blacks, but it hasn't been. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The 3 main points of the naming convention [- Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers. - Titles should be brief without being ambiguous. - Titles should make linking to the article simple.] all support this move. In the discussions above, I've yet to see a strong argument that the name 'All Blacks' is in keeping with any of them. hippo43 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • People seem to be asserting that no one outside of NZ refers to them as the All Blacks. That is simply not true, I rarely hear NZ used, with AB by far the most common name (in UK).
  • All Blacks is briefer than New Zealand national rugby union team, and is not ambiguous.
  • I don't see how New Zealand national rugby union team is easier to link to than the Al Blacks.

Most importantly, we may need to let the All Blacks know about the outcome of this discussion, as their website may be at the wrong url, and many people may not be able to find it, as they don't know the team name. All Blacks is the official name of the team, whereas Sprinboks, Wallabies etc are just unofficial nicknames. Why are we considering moving a page which uses the official name to a generic name, just for the sake of consistency? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If "All Blacks" is so well known and unambiguous, it is curious that whoever wrote this list http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/top-5-sporting-moments-2008-40132 of great sporting moments seems to think that All Blacks is somekind of generic NZ team name as he consistantly refers to the NZ rugby league team as "All Blacks" (see great sporting moment number 5).GordyB (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Any sports article would just say "New Zealand" not "New Zealand national rugby union team".GordyB (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
[2] Return 1.3 million and gives a better indication of usage and consider I had too considerably narrow the search for Union to avoid league hits. A general seach give 8.4 mill [3] while Rugby - league gives 5.2 [4] Gnevin (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC) .
Ps [5] All blacks and rugby give 1.9 and [6] all black + rugby gives 600K Gnevin (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We are missing the point here. It doesn't matter what the most commonly used name is. It doesn't matter what the 'official' name is. What matters, according to the naming convention, is the 'most easily recognized name', to a general audience of English speakers.

The naming convention states: "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". The greatest number of (native) English speakers are American, and most Americans wouldn't understand the term 'All Blacks'. On the other hand, 'New Zealand national rugby team' is self-explanatory, and unambiguous to a general audience.

In terms of linking, the naming convention says 'at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature'. This is where consistency with other rugby teams is valuable. To have just one national rugby team as an exception makes linking harder, not easy or second nature. Also, as in the David Kirk example above, linking to 'All Blacks' will be much more likely to confuse a general audience. hippo43 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that much of the above discussion misses the point. Disagree that It doesn't matter what the most commonly used name is.
It's difficult to measure directly what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, so in practice we often use measures of usage, such as Google, as rough measures of comprehensibility. It's not perfect, but it works to a certain extent.
So far as linking is concerned, disagree. I've been asking around everyone who will listen at Christmas functions, and I've yet to find a person who either didn't know that the All Blacks were the NZ international representative rugby team, or who had heard of any other team by that name. When I explicitly asked about seven-a-side or other NZ teams, I just got blank looks. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team/Archive_4&oldid=1136251485"