Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about New Zealand national rugby union team. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Stupidity

Well I see that complete stupidity has prevailed over WP:COMMONSENSE. What a ridiculous move with no sign of consensus and some unfounded assertion that most people don't call the team the All Blacks, or even know what they are. Well done. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No one unfamiliar with Rugby union would know them as the All Blacks or understand what it meant. For example in the last Ruby World Cup it was broadcast in Sweden and they were referred to as "New Zealand", just as I guess they might be in many other countries not that in to RU. I can name a similar example Sweden men's national ice hockey team, always referred to in Sweden as "Tre kronor" (Three crowns), only very seldom "hockeylandslaget" (the hockey national team), the junior team is called just as often "Junior kronorna" (The junior crowns), but their articles on the swedish wp are not on nicknames, just as really no other team in no sport is on their nickname. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do provide support for these accusations that no one knows who the All Blacks are. Perhaps people need to realise that the All Blacks is the official trademarked name of the team, not just some unofficial nickname. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The decision has been made. Although you don't like it, it is not the end of the world. Just let it go.GordyB (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? The wrong decision has been made for the wrong reasons. There has been no evidence presented that "nobody knows who the All Blacks are", only unfounded assertions with absolutely no support. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The decision has been made and it is not likely to change. I proposed this name change years ago but at that time not very many people were interested. Despite my belief that the article name was wrong, I decided to just get on with life. There are quite a few things on Wikipedia that I am not particularly happy about but you can't win every argument.GordyB (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that nobody knows that the New Zealand team is called the All blacks, but you're trying to say that everybody in the world knows that the All Blacks is the New Zealand national rugby union team, and that is not true. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that "All Blacks" is the actual team name. Thus, people can search for NZ rugby union team, and be redirected to the page titled "All Blacks" where they will learn that the team name is the "All Blacks". Nouse4aname (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the naming convention says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". Common sense says this is 'New Zealand ... team' as it is self-explanatory, particularly to the huge number of people who have no background in rugby union.

'All Blacks' has certainly been trademarked, but that doesn't make it 'the official name' (whatever that means). The name of the team in international competition is always 'New Zealand'.

GordyB is right - let it go.hippo43 (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The official name is the name that the team uses as its name. Which is the "All Blacks". New Zealand is used by the IRB for political reasons. Where is the evidence that the world outside of New Zealand doesn't know who the All Blacks are. If you can prove to me that the term All Blacks is Alien to the rest of the world, then I will let it go, but considering it is used by the American press: NY Times, Time Magazine, LA Times, Japanese press: Japan Times, UK Press: The Times (UK), The Telegraph, [BBC, and even the IRB on occasion IRB. Perhaps even more interesting is this quote from the UK Metro: “But the move has gone down badly with the New Zealand RFU - whose national team are known globally as the All Blacks.” It seems to me that this decision has not been based on fact or evidence, but simply on counting votes. The All Blacks is the name of the team that represents the country of New Zealand in rugby union. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"New Zealand is used by the IRB for political reasons"?? Are you serious? 'New Zealand' is used by the media and official bodies because that is the team's name. The team representing New Zealand is called New Zealand. (Just as the team representing France is called France. The team representing Argentina is called Argentina ...)

Actually, as I have shown above, the media use the term "All Blacks", and not just NZ media, but US, UK and Japan. There are plenty more out there to show that. You are right in that the team representing France is called France, but the article cannot be located at "France" because that is where the article on the country is, so we made up some disambiguation term and put the article at France national rugby union team - the same is true for the other countries, except that is, New Zealand. The New Zealand team actually has another name, which is widely recognised (as supported by the links I provided above), and so instead of using some ridiculously wordy disambiguation title, we should use the actual team name.

'All Blacks' is rarely, if ever used in an official context - it is a long-standing nickname and more recently a protected brand name. Among lots of other nicknames, 'Wallabies' and 'Springboks' are both used by the teams themselves - that doesn't make them the 'official name'.

Please define "official"? Why are we not using the actual name of the team? See the links above regarding the fact that the team is called the All Blacks, and known as this around the world.

Anyway, arguments over the 'official name' are really irrelevant, given the terms of the naming convention. You still haven't said whether you think 'All Blacks' is the most easily recognised name to a general audience of English speakers. Seems clear to most that it isn't. I don't think anyone has really argued that "the world outside of New Zealand doesn't know who the All Blacks are" or "the term All Blacks is Alien to the rest of the world". hippo43 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All Blacks is most certainly the most easily recognised name to a general audience. The whole point of the NZRU trademarking the brand was because it is a huge merchandising and advertising source for them. The entire argument against using the title "All Blacks" is because apparently no one knows who they are. However, the numerous media outlets I have linked to above prove otherwise. The onus is on you to provide evidence that "New Zealand national rugby union team" is more easily recognised that All Blacks. Not just opinion and assertions without basis, but actual, solid evidence that "All Blacks" is not easily recognised. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this evidence-based principle. Nouse4aname has provided numerous items of evidence that the name used to identify the team is the "All Blacks", in international media including that of the US, where rugby is not well-known. No evidence has been provided that "New Zealand national rugby union team" is better-recognised. The name change was made solely based on personal opinions of some editors that "All Blacks" is less recognisable. Should Boston Red Sox be renamed to Boston major league baseball team? The name should be changed back immediately, and should only be changed again if evidence is provided that another name is better-recognised. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Should Boston Red Sox be renamed to Boston major league baseball team?" This is ridiculous. Of course it shouldn't. Perhaps more relevant, it shouldn't be renamed BoSox, despite that being a commonly used nickname -[1]

The links which Nouse4aname provided 'prove' nothing. They are peppered with references to the team as 'New Zealand'.

"All Blacks is most certainly the most easily recognised name to a general audience." You provide no evidence for this specific point, just some links which show that the term is used. It would be equally easy to link to a bunch of articles calling the team 'New Zealand'. (Which you already have)

"The entire argument against using the title "All Blacks" is because apparently no one knows who they are." This is nonsense. Please read the debate above again - several arguments are made in favour of 'New Zealand' - particularly consistency with other articles, the naming convention, Common sense ('New Zealand...' is self-explanatory to a general audience) and that 'New Zealand' is the team's 'official' name. (I've made no attempt to define 'official' - seems a spurious term to me.)

In the discussion above, none of the more credible contributors dispute that 'All Blacks' is widely used. It has long been a nickname for the team and is more recently a trademarked brand name. Like 'New Zealand', it is commonly used in informal speech and by journalists. However, in a more formal context, such as when results are reported, or fixtures listed, the team is overwhelmingly called 'New Zealand', including by the NZRU - [2] and IRB - [3], [4]

"The name should be changed back immediately, and should only be changed again if evidence is provided that another name is better-recognised." "The onus is on you to provide evidence that "New Zealand national rugby union team" is more easily recognised that All Blacks." No - consensus was reached, and now the onus is on you to provide overwhelming evidence of your case.

'All Blacks' is clearly one of the team's names (whether it is a nickname, brand name, the team's 'actual name', an unofficial name ... etc). However, to pretend that 'New Zealand' is not the team's name is ludicrous and has no credibility. hippo43 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The All Blacks is the name of the team. New Zealand is the name of the country that the All Blacks represent. What is so hard to understand? Nouse4aname (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You demand evidence of others but seem reluctant to provide any real evidence yourself. Who says "The All Blacks is the name of the team"? You??

No, the various sources I have provided above. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In international sport, the team representing a country is called the name of the country. What is so hard to understand? hippo43 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, without exception? Please, provide evidence. You seem intent on making bold statements but providing no evidence for what you are actually saying. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Metro article you have quoted calls the team "the mighty New Zealand" in the first paragraph!hippo43 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"No - consensus was reached, and now the onus is on you to provide overwhelming evidence of your case." - It's very clear from reading the straw poll that consensus was not reached. Almost as many people opposed the move as supported it, and they provided good reasons based in policy for the name remaining All Blacks. So, the name was moved without clear consensus, and certainly without evidence being provided that the new name is the most recognised. I'm not interested in rugby as a rule, but when I stumbled on this article and saw the name, I was pretty shocked by the egregious breach of WP:NAME. The pages you link to as evidence state "All Blacks" as often as "New Zealand". Go to the first IRB link, click on the "more" button, and see. The first link you gave is to allblacks.com. Says it all, really. People use "New Zealand" occasionally to vary their writing rather than repeating "All Blacks" constantly, or to orient foreign audiences unfamiliar with rugby. "New Zealand" is used in score results, for consistency with other team names. The Time article linked to by Nouse4aname called them the All Blacks from the start. The US's biggest magazine aimed at an international audience calls them that. Presumably because they know the name is recognised? The LA Times article calls them "The All Blacks.... the national team of New Zealand" to orient people not interested in rugby, then goes on to call them the All Blacks for the rest of the article. And that's aimed at a US domestic audience. All Blacks is the name, "national team of New Zealand" is just a description. It's clear from these sources that major US publications expect the US audience, the very audience you were focusing on in your original arguments, to either recognise the name All Blacks or learn to recognise it immediately, because it's the team's name. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What gets lost in the immense ammount of rhetoric posted is that the term "All Blacks" is not always correct used, for example, I posted an example of a sports article that erroneously referred to the New Zealand rugby league team (correctly nicknamed the Kiwis) as "the All Blacks". If even sports writers don't necessarily know that All Blacks is only the union team's name and not a generic New Zealand brand then it is ridiculous to argue that is more easily understood than New Zealand national rugby union team.GordyB (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is the offending article again, 2008 great sporting moments the All Blacks (sic) win the Rugby League World Cup.[5].

This usage has been fairly common as back in the early 20th century, the rugby league team were often called the "professional All Blacks" with the union team getting the "amateur All Blacks" label. And this was done by Antipodean sports writers.GordyB (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"People use "New Zealand" occasionally to vary their writing rather than repeating "All Blacks" constantly, or to orient foreign audiences unfamiliar with rugby."

""New Zealand" is used in score results, for consistency with other team names." Says who? Stop making stuff up. Where is the evidence you are so keen on? Perhaps it is used in these contexts because New Zealand is the team's name!

The IRB refers to 'New Zealand' in its fixtures, rankings and annual awards.[6] The NZRU refers to 'New Zealand' in its fixtures and results, as above. This suggests they consider New Zealand the team's name.

Listing instances of 'All Blacks' accomplishes nothing. It's not in dispute that it is widely used, or widely known.

Again, the naming convention says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". It's surely beyond doubt that a huge number of English-speakers around the world have no interest or knowledge of rugby. 'New Zealand...' is both correct and, to these readers, self-explanatory. hippo43 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your "self-explanatory" argument is that applies to the Boston Red Sox as well. To the many English speakers in the world with no interest in baseball, Boston major league baseball team would be more self-explanatory. The point is, more self-explanatory does not equal more recognisable, and if we went around changing all article names from the name usually used to a description of the subject, Wikipedia would be the worse for it. "All Blacks" is more recognisable, because it's the name most often used for the team. In the news media, in books about rugby, and so forth, in other words in reliable sources, the team is referred to most often as the "All Blacks" or the "New Zealand All Blacks", while being sometimes referred to as "New Zealand". You say that the real name of the team is New Zealand. I'd dispute that there is significant evidence of that, your IRB links show usage but not definition, so I'd say neither side has demonstrated what the "real name" is yet. I've just been looking through Google Books for usage and I'd say that there is a fair amount of usage as the "New Zealand All Blacks". Either that, or just All Blacks, would be a far more recognisable name than the description that's in place now. Descriptions are acceptable titles when a subject doesn't have a name, but this subject has a name so well recognised that Time Magazine uses it without explanation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Red Sox example is irrelevant - there is no debate about what to title that article.

Your claim that there is insufficient evidence that the team's name is New Zealand is laughable. You said "your IRB links show usage but not definition" - what does that even mean? Which team is the IRB talking about at the top of their world rankings? When articles like this - [7] - talks about New Zealand, which team are they talking about? When the Rugby World Cup site [8] lists New Zealand as a 'team' are they wrong? They are a lot more authoritative than the news articles listed above. Are you saying the IRB is wrong but the Metro, LA Times etc are correct?

The current title is not a description - it is the team's name with 'national rugby union team' appended for clarity. Perhaps using brackets - 'New Zealand (national rugby union team)' - would be a better format to differentiate it from the country etc - just as we have Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson (writer), Michael Jackson (actor) etc

You claim "the team is referred to most often as the "All Blacks"" Really? You provide no evidence, just a list of examples. Where is the authoritative source which has done real research into this? hippo43 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of the Red Sox example is to illustrate that your use of "self-explanatory" as synonymous with "recognisable" is flawed. WP:NAME calls for the most recognisable name, not the most self-explanatory, and there is a difference. New Zealand national rugby union team is more self-explanatory, but All Blacks is more recognisable, as illustrated by the latter's use in international media stories about the team. My point regarding the IRB is that you haven't linked to an IRB source that states that the name of the team is "New Zealand". You've just linked to IRB sources that use both "New Zealand" and "All Blacks" in reference to the team, thus it's an example of usage not the IRB defining the name of the team. I think we'd agree that no source has been provided by anyone that explicitly says the name of the team is X, and not Y. Likewise, no source has been provided that explicitly says the most common usage is X, and not Y. Perhaps such a source exists, but I've looked and not found one. In it's absence, we are left with sources such as the international media and the IRB site to try to extrapolate what the most recognisable usage is. I believe that examples of the "All Blacks" usage in large, international, US-based media sources that are read by a general international audience is better evidence of general recognisability than usage on the IRB website, which after all would only be visited by rugby fans. Such large media organisations would not use the name "All Blacks" if they didn't feel enough of their general audience would recognise it. Their expertise in knowing what would be recognisable to a general audience is presumably superior to yours or mine. That's why I think that the weight of evidence given so far points to "All Blacks" or "New Zealand All Blacks" as more recognisable, and therefore the most appropriate article name according to WP:NAME. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So if the IRB site, or the NZRU's own site, use the name 'New Zealand' in rankings, fixtures, statistics, results etc they don't mean the team??

The Rugby World Cup site (part of the IRB) [9] lists 'New Zealand' as the team in lists of player statistics. Likewise, under 'Team Statistics' and 'Team Records' from the same page, New Zealand is listed as a team.

I haven't said that "self-explanatory" and "recognisable" are synonymous. Your argument, however, implies that "recognisable" is synonymous with "widely used by the media".

Those people who are familiar with 'All Blacks' will generally know that 'All Blacks' is a nickname/name of the New Zealand team. Those who aren't familiar with 'All Blacks' will easily recognise this article's title. Therefore 'New Zealand...' makes the article recognisable to the greatest number.

hippo43 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the naming convention requires making linking easy and second nature. For example, Tri_Nations_(rugby_union) lists New Zealand in the league table (consistent with practically every media organisation), but in your opinion this would need to be linked to All Blacks, so neither easy nor second nature.

hippo43 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As another example, the British media routinely refer to 'the Tories', yet the 'proper name' is used for the Wikipedia article - Conservative_Party_(UK). It would be easy to list a huge number of links to newspapers and news sites using the name 'Tories', but when they are presenting the news in a more formal way, for example election results, these same media outlets generally use the name 'Conservative'.

hippo43 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Those people who are familiar with 'Boston Red Sox' will generally know that 'Boston Red Sox' is a name of the Boston major league baseball team. Those who aren't familiar with 'Boston Red Sox' will easily recognise the title Boston major league baseball team. Therefore 'Boston major league...' makes the article recognisable to the greatest number. See the problem? Your exact logic, applied to another article, creates a result that you've already acknowledged would be wrong. If you think the Red Sox is a different case because it's a US team recognised by many US-based English language speakers, then you're arguing in favour of systemic bias. There are three real questions here. 1) What is the actual name of the team? 2) What is the most recognisable name of the team? 3) What name works best for a Wikipedia article? You are arguing that "New Zealand" is the name of the team, that the team name "New Zealand" is more generally recognisable (with the addition of adequate context), and that the current article name is more consistent with other national team article names in Wikipedia - and those aspects of your argument are perfectly logical and compelling if the first two items can be proven. Others are arguing that "All Blacks" is both the actual name, the most recognisable name, and the least jarring title for the article, and the first two points come down to demonstrating the facts too. It is difficult to find adequate sources to answer questions 1 or 2 definitely, most sources just show usage rather than being authoritative sources regarding what the usual usage is. In terms of what the actual name of the team is, I'd raise this point: what is the actual name of the Junior All Blacks? www.allblacks.com, presumably the authority in terms of self-defining the names of New Zealand's rugby union teams, refers to them as the Junior All Blacks, or "New Zealand's Junior All Blacks". And it refers to the All Blacks as the All Blacks, only called it the team New Zealand in results. There are in fact two New Zealand national rugby union teams: the All Blacks and the Junior All Blacks. Those are the names they call themselves by, and editors of large international media seem to think that "All Blacks" is the most recognisable name for their general audience. That's why I think "All Blacks" or "New Zealand All Blacks" are better names for the article. As an aside, I'm scratching my head at what you might like to change the name of Junior All Blacks to, to make it "more recognisable". Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I still see no problem with the Boston Red Sox name. That is not my 'exact logic' at all. They are a club side and not the representative side of Boston, so the comparison is not accurate, and there is no debate about the Boston Red Sox article title. There's really no need to try to guess my thinking, or what bias I might be guilty of.

I wouldn't channge the name of the Junior All Blacks article because Junior All Blacks is their name. There is no consistent naming scheme across international rugby 'second teams' - different unions have different names for their second or development teams, such as Scotland A, England Saxons, Junior All Blacks, France Espoirs. Again, I don't think anyone is seriously disputing that 'All Blacks' is commonly used, in various contexts - certainly it is used internally by the NZRU to differentiate the senior national team from their other representative sides. Similarly, nicknames like Springboks and Wallabies are used in the same way by their unions.

You say the debate boils down to three questions. Why these three questions? The naming convention is summarised -

Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers.
Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.
Titles should make linking to the article simple.

Seems to me we should focus on these, and not make up new criteria.

FWIW, the 'actual name' of the team (though I'm not assuming a team can only have one name) is surely the name used in such formal contexts as the NZRU and IRB results, so in this case is obviously 'New Zealand'. The IRB rankings which list 'New Zealand', the World Cup records which list 'New Zealand', and the NZRU fixtures which refer to 'New Zealand' are certainly authoritative sources - they are published by the world governing body of the sport and the governing body of the team. To argue that that the team is not called 'New Zealand' remains ridiculous.

hippo43 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to get distracted, but it would be more civil to say "The team is clearly called 'New Zealand'" than to say "To argue that that the team is not called 'New Zealand' remains ridiculous." Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to policy the key question of those I listed is number 2, the recognisability of the name. The naming policy states that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Sources such as Time Magazine and the LA Times largely using "All Blacks", as previously linked to, demonstrates that "All Blacks" is the most recognisable term according to the method suggested in the policy. What's used on specialist rugby websites is less relevant than what publications for a general audience use, because "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for... general audience over specialists". It's been shown that publications for a general audience use "All Blacks". Following the method suggested in the policy, the name of the article should therefore be "All Blacks". Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The very existance of the phrase "New Zealand All Blacks" suggests that All Blacks isn't as well known as people here are suggesting. If you look at the top search result for a google search on "New Zealand All Blacks" [10] then you will see that the NZRU refer to Allblacks.com as the being the official site for the New Zealand All Blacks. Clearly the NZRU don't think the term is sufficiently well known for an international audience.GordyB (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Paddy, you say "It's been shown that publications for a general audience use "All Blacks"" yet the same handful of links given above also show that publications for a general audience use "New Zealand". More examples could easily be supplied. It's not in question that "publications for a general audience use "All Blacks"". It certainly hasn't been proved that publications for a general audience use one term more than the other.

We we should, if possible, use a title that fits all 3 key criteria of the naming convention -

Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers.

Per all the reasons above, 'New Zealand..' is easily recognizable

As is "All Blacks", per sources above. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.

'New Zealand..' is brief (similar in length to other national rugby teams) and as unambiguous as every other national team. I don't think 'All Blacks' is really ambiguous, though some other editors do.

All Blacks is briefer than New Zealand national rugby union team. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles should make linking to the article simple.

As above, 'New Zealand..' is preferable on this count.

What is so difficult about linking to "All Blacks"? I really can't see you point for any of these favouring NZ nat. rugby team over AB. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This because you ignore any evidence that doesn't fit into your view point. You list articles that use the term "All Blacks" as evidence that everybody understands it but when I cite articles that misuse the term or where the term has been qualified as "New Zealand All Blacks", you ignore it and act as if there is no evidence for any alternative view point. This is why this discussion simply goes round in circles.GordyB (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He even says that "New Zealand All Blacks" or "New Zealand's All Blacks" would be a better title than the current one- and I agree, although I think it would be better than just the All Blacks. And as you don't state that nobody understands the term All Blacks, neither does he state that the term All Blacks is understood by everyone.

Its easy, All Blacks does not explain what the article is about, you have to have pre-existing knowledge about rugby. "the New Zealand national rugby union team" is self explanatory, unambiguous and precise. Even the IRB uses New Zealand in official matters [11][12][13] because it's the national team, a national team that represents a nation (member of the IRB). Therefore you use the nation they are representing, not a name or nickname how official it might be. It is NOT a worldwide recognizable term, not even within the English as official language part of the world, it is not known by people who don't know much or anything about rugby... The All Blacks is a term refers to the New Zealand national rugby union team, the New Zealand national rugby union team isn't a term that refers to the All Blacks. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 13:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come off it. Do you really think people are that stupid that they need such a ridiculous article title to explain what the article is? That is what the lead section is for. The All Blacks is the name of the team. New Zealand is the name of the country that they represent. This article is about the team, hence should be titled the “All Blacks”. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If a person were to do an internet search of "New Zealand Rugby Union" (removed national because the All Blacks do not represent New Zealand; see below) and come to the article "All Blacks", this would obviously imply that the All Blacks are the team of New Zealand Rugby Union (because they are). This person wouldn't question why this article is named AB instead of NZRU, because reading the lead section would confirm the previous implication. Therefore, there is no need for an overly detailed title.

All Blacks is the official team name, otherwise why would they name their oficial website that? If you say that All Blacks is a nickname for the team, why wouldn't they name their official website something shorter or www.newzealandrugbyunion.com? And even if it is a nickname for the team, it would then obviously be a nickname that is recognized worldwide by people who speak english. 70.15.212.110 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"The All Blacks is the name of the team. New Zealand is the name of the country that they represent." Where is your evidence for this? Simply repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

New Zealand isn't the name of the country that they represent, but why have you named the title of this article so? Why not New Zealand (rugby team) or New Zealand's Rugby Team? And about the All Blacks being their official name: See Above. 70.15.212.110 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

hippo43 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Many national teams have 'names' but that doesn't matter, its about the country they represent we use. As I said at the start, many Swedish national teams have what would be commonnames in Swedish, Blågult, Tre kronor, Damkronorna, Juniorkronorna, The smiling nationalteam (though this last one is not that serious), most if not all of those are just as known in Sweden to sport fans as the All Blacks probably is to New Zealanders who like sports. The stupid thing would be to move other teams with known nicknames, Oranje, Azzurri, Les Bleus, Albicelestes, A Seleção, La Selección, Socceroos, The Black Stars, Bafana Bafana, The Elephants, The Lions, The Reggae Boyz. The list could go on with more or less known nicknames. It would be bad for consistency and bad for being explanatory because you have to be pre-interested in the subject to know these nicknames — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason these names are not internationally recognized is because they are not in English. If the name of the All Blacks was in Maori, that too wouldn't be internationally recognized. 70.15.212.110 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the ALL BLACKS do not represent New Zealand. They represent the New Zealand Rugby Union. Therefore comparisons with the Boston Red Sox are perfectly valid.58.179.49.113 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand the All Blacks are known as that: the All Blacks. When we discuss who may get picked for the All Blacks, we phrase it: "I think so & so will be picked for the All Blacks." We never say: "I think so & so will be picked for the New Zealand rugby team." Many teams may have nicknames, not many of them are printed on the jersey. All Blacks is on the All Black jersey. 'New Zealand' used to be printed on the jersey with 'All Blacks,' but so the term All Blacks could be copy righted, the NZRFU removed 'New Zealand' from the jersey. As a New Zealander I was dissapointed at this move, but I still recognise that the name of the team is the All Blacks. Sure official tables will always list New Zealand, and that's fine. It doesn't however change the name of the team from the All Blacks. From the media coverage we get here it would seem that in other rugby playing countries the terms 'All Blacks' and 'New Zealand' are synonomous with each other. If you know of one, chances are you know of the other. Most of the time it's still the 'All Blacks' though (Except when the Lions try to call us New Zealand on purpose so they feel less intimidated!) In non-rugby playing countries I don't think either term would be very well known, and it's a joke to try and argue that the 'New Zealand rugby union team' is more self explanatory than the 'All Blacks' to people who don't know rugby. So to change the name on that basis is misleading. The opening paragraph is there to clear up any misconceptions about who is or isn't the All Blacks anyway. In summery: the team's name is the All Blacks, and should be changed back to that in Wikipedia to reflect reality. Jonny Newcombe - Canterbury, New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.151.174 (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Known globally

This is absurd.

Firstly - most of the world's population don't speak English and would not use an English term.

Secondly - the vast majority (globally speaking) of people aren't interested in rugby union and have little knowledge of it.

Thirdly - a fair percentage of the world's population have probably never even heard of New Zealand.

Saying that the All Black name is used "globally" would suggest that you go up to a random person in Brazil, Vietnam or Saudi Arabia and start talking about the All Blacks and expect them to know what you were talking about.GordyB (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous or not, it is sourced. What exactly is your problem this time, except that it is in contrast to your opinion? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it isn't true would be a slight concern. I don't think any sports team (except possibly Manchester United) could really claim to be "known globally" and even then I would consider the idea that they are globally known as the Red Devils to be rather debatable.GordyB (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You cant source anything that would say they're globally known as New Zealand.. They might be globally known in the Rugby union world, not not outside it. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 12:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gordy, known globally isn't a term to be taken to the literal extreme, if you believe it should be then I suggest you also clear all instances of the phrase on all these pages too. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=known+globally+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search Cheers CullenNZ (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be the case, but these usages aren't taken from encyclopaedias. Encyclopaedias are to be taken literally.GordyB (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, encyclopaedia's are to be taken literally. That means you'll have to remove any type of vague terms of phrase out of every Wikipedia article, you'd better start now, it may take some time. CullenNZ (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny enough that actually is Wikipedia policy.GordyB (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then all pages tagged with humurous must be blanked, as they are compromising the integrity of Wikipedia.

Could we just have "widely known as the All Blacks"?GordyB (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then the article should be renamed to All Blacks or such. 70.15.212.110 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If something is clearly untrue, as in this case, it shouldn't be included even if it is sourced. Quite often newspapers will publish something that is simply exaggerated and not fact-checked properly, but will have no consequences because it's not really important to anyone. WP:Common sense?

We could have "[name of Metro journalist] states that they are known globally as the All Blacks" followed by the reference, but that would be absurd in the lead.

I suggest 'New Zealand's national rugby union team is called the All Blacks'.

hippo43 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is true and what is not? How about "The All Blacks are the national rugby union team of New Zealand", with the article title of "All Blacks". It is factually correct, and makes perfect common sense. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me.GordyB (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that the article title should be "All Blacks" and not "New Zealand national rugby union team"? Nouse4aname (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I rather like the new intro.GordyB (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Who are you to decide what is true and what is not?" A minimum of thought shows that this statement is patently untrue. Do you disagree?

"How about "The All Blacks are the national rugby union team of New Zealand", with the article title of "All Blacks". It is factually correct, and makes perfect common sense." As you'll see from my numerous comments above, I disagree. Who are you to decide what is perfect common sense and what is not? 'New Zealand is the national rugby union team of New Zealand' is factually correct, and per the reasons above, the article should be titled 'New Zealand national rugby union team'.

hippo43 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the only difference in this context between "widely known" and "known globally" is that the latter is hyperbole for the former. That being said, "The New Zealand national rugby union team, known as the All Blacks,..." would probably be factually correct. Would that be acceptable to everyone? Joeldl (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead should start with 'New Zealand's national rugby union team ...' or 'The New Zealand national rugby union team...' to be consistent with the title.

Either '...are known as the All Blacks', '...are called the All Blacks' or 'are the All Blacks' works for me.

hippo43 (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of those. But what I was suggesting was something like this (see the Dec. 31 version of the article):

The New Zealand national rugby union team, known as the All Blacks, is the representative side of New Zealand in rugby union.

It's good to have links to New Zealand and rugby union immediately. Joeldl (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point on links. hippo43 (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that "The All Blacks are the national rugby union team of New Zealand"" would be consistent with the article title if the article title was what it actually should be. Hippo, it would be appreciated if you did not invoke your suggestions immediately on the actual article page until they have been agreed upon. Simply suggesting a change and then making that change without waiting for a response is just rude. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it was rude - my change was legitimate and could have been made without reference to this discussion page. Including it in the talk page seems to me more courteous, not less.

However, changing the first sentence to reflect your view on what the title should be, as you did, is rude. hippo43 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, you suggested in your edit summary that your edit had been agreed on the talk page, which it hadn't, whereas what I suggested was agreed to by GordyB. Perhaps you could start indenting your responses as well, to keep the order of comments more clear? Nouse4aname (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't suggest anything - I wrote 'cl - see talk'. your change on the other hand, was obviously contentious given the long discussion above. hippo43 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't lie. Here is where you suggest your intro ("I suggest 'New Zealand's national rugby union team is called the All Blacks'.") and Here, less than ten minutes later is where you make your change, without agreement. As can be seen from the discussion, your edit was also highly contentious. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Don't lie."?? Suggest you read the policies on No personal attacks, Civility & Assume Good Faith.

I wrote 'cl - see talk' as my edit summary. No part of that implies agreement. It means 'cleanup - see the discussion page'. I made a suggestion and acted on it - if you thought I was waiting for your approval, then you were mistaken.

I made an edit which was in keeping with the article title (unlike your subsequent edit) and which was more conciliatory than the previous version. Other editors were free to amend it as they wanted.

hippo43 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being uncivil, I am just stating facts. You said, and I quote "I suggest 'New Zealand's national rugby union team is called the All Blacks'", and then you implement your change without debate. So rather than being polite and waiting for other's responses, you just go ahead and make your change. That is not how things are done when there is disagreement on the issue. I, on the other hand, made a suggestion, waited for a response, which to was positive and in favour of my suggestion, thus I implemented my change. Anyway, as you say yourself, other editors were free to amend your edit, which I did. Unless of course you think that for some reason only people that agree with your viewpoint are able to edit this article? And for the last time, will you please indent your responses using "::::" Nouse4aname (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were supposed to be bold, as in all edits can be reverted, so if you think you are positively contributing to Wikipedia, just edit. I guess all Wikipedia policies are lies. 2 votes for something and 2 votes against is hardly a consensus. 70.15.212.110 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating facts? ‘Don’t lie’ is not a statement of facts, nor civil. I note you wrote ‘stop stirring’ in a recent edit summary. Perhaps you could re-read those policies.

Again, can you explain which part of ‘cl - see talk’ says anything has been agreed? Which part of ‘I suggest…’ says I am waiting for approval?

Only one editor agreed with your own (obviously contentious) proposal - hardly consensus, as shown by the recent and predictable series of edits.

“Unless of course you think that for some reason only people that agree with your viewpoint are able to edit this article?” No, I didn’t say that either. hippo43 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you only need to indent your post at the start of the paragraph, using one “:” more than the previous post. Yes, I wrote stop stirring, perhaps some people don’t take everything so seriously? There is nothing uncivil about that comment, just a jovial acknowledgement that it is a situation under debate that I though had been settled.

So was 'Don’t lie' likewise a 'jovial' comment?

The fact that you direct editors to the talk page suggests that your edit was discussed and agreed on the talk page.

No, it doesn't. It directs them to the talk page.

There is no point in suggesting something on the talk page and then making the change anyway. The whole meaning of a “suggestion” is that it is your opinion on how we could move forward, something to be discussed and amended as required.

The meaning of a suggestion is that you are suggesting that something is better. If you think I was asking for something to be 'discussed and amended as required' you are reading too much into it.

Yes, only one person agreed, however this person was representative of the opposite viewpoint to my own, and give their agreement, it seemed to be a better proposal than yours, which I again point out, no one agreed to. I simply edited your version to reflect an alternative phrasing which had been agreed upon. My final statement was simply to clarify the fact that you said “Other editors were free to amend it as they wanted”, and yet when I did this, you simply reverted my change. Hardly a collaborative effort, is it? Nouse4aname (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

“Other editors were free to amend it as they wanted” is correct. You amended it, as you were free to do, but your edit was obviously contentious, given the lengthy discussion, and not consistent with the agreed article title, so I amended it, as I was free to do. Since then, several others have edited the article, as they are free to do. Seems clear to me. Are you seriously implying that your own approach to this article has been "a collaborative effort"?

hippo43 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This page was moved recently. The closing administrator wrote the following:

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.

If you feel that the administrator acted inappropriately, I suggest you discuss the matter with him. If not, but you still feel that "All Blacks" is a better title, and you think you can convince others, you can try to establish consensus for a move back. (That doesn't seem likely to me.) Otherwise, it's important to accept the move decision so that there can be some finality to this question. That means, among other things, accepting to edit the article in a way that fits with the current title rather than with the one you prefer. Joeldl (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, do you think it would be worthwhile to have discussed it with that administrator who moved it, after all if they still move the article when there was no clear consensus, what's the point? I mean it was All Blacks for 4 or so years, during that time it got promoted to good article status, subsequently promoted to feature article status and then put on the Main Page. So how did the article manage to do that in 4 years and all of a sudden someone who had some crusade to remove instances of the term All Blacks who in the past got rejected, managed this time to get their wish? So in four years it was accepted to be a disambiguous, recognisable article title but somehow it's now also all of a sudden t's turned into an informal nickname that can't be suitable since it isn't consistent with other national rugby team articles? I thought that's what life is, you can be consistent most the time but when common sense needs to be displayed, common sense should trump consistency, that's how exception to rules usually come about. If it were to have been moved to New Zealand rugby union team it should have really been done by a New Zealand based administrator, because all it ends up smelling of is some bias especially as mentioned earlier there was no consensus. And yeah it won't be moved back to All Blacks because there may never be a clear consensus but unlike last time nobody is going to move an article when there ain't a consensus so unfortunately we're going to have to live with New Zealand national rugby union team on Wikipedia whereas most other places on the internet/TV/radio/media will continue on mass call them the All Blacks. CullenNZ (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was moves approved except for Haka of the All Blacks and Category:All Blacks. There was no consensus on Haka of the All Blacks; a new move request may be filed on its talk page. Category moves must be taken to WP:CFD; they are more complicated than simple page moves. Any editor may move the pages, I'm too lazy. :) Aervanath (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We should move the rest of the All-Blacks articles to keep them in line with this article, The Rugby Union project already agrees

Support in line with the above RM. - – Pee Jay 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't think List of All Blacks > List of New Zealand rugby union players is a good move because the new title is too vague. It's a list of players who have played for the NZ National team, not a list of rugby players that are NZ'ers. Something like List of New Zealand national rugby union representatives would be better (someone else could probably come up with an even better suggestion?). Support the rest Mattlore (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that nom it was a typo Gnevin (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Still think it is a bit vague - playing for the Sevens or even the NZ Maori could arguably make a player an "international footballer" but it does not make them an All Black/a representative of the national team. Also I'm surprised at the feeling that has emerged from this discussion already, so I'm not supporting a move until further discussion has taken place. Mattlore (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Granted it was a typo but New Zealand rugby union international players could refer to NZers playing international rugby union for Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Japan, England etc, All Blacks is far less ambiguous and simply means players who played for the All Blacks. CullenNZ (talk)

Btw, I think List of New Zealand national rugby union footballers would be the proper proposal to maintain consistency with other countries Mattlore (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Strongly oppose and move New Zealand national rugby union team back to All Blacks Well as stated by Mattlore List of All Blacks should stay because List of New Zealand rugby union players means any New Zealander playing rugby union around the world whereas the list is of those who played for the top side. Also Category:All Blacks should stay for similar reasons. Pretty convenient how the top link has the status quo of British and Irish Lions though. I still feel the move of All Blacks to New Zealand national rugby union team was a highly contentious one, these requested moves are the equivalent to constantly kicking a boxer in the nuts after illegally tackling him to the ground. CullenNZ (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that nom it was a typo Gnevin (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure but point still stands that removing references to All Blacks in article titles only leads to the article title being more ambiguous, which I thought wouldn't be the point in moving an article. CullenNZ (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, for consistency with all other articles. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 07:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Consistency would be to change New Zealand national rugby union team back to the All Blacks, you know the article title it was for the past 4 or so years on English Wikipedia. But let's conveniently forget about that and let's remove all instances of the term All Blacks and replace it with New Zealand so it makes every article title therefore highly ambiguous and/or longer than it needs to be. Brilliant, consistency trumps common sense once more.CullenNZ (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No consistency would be moving New Zealand into the same format as all other national teams in all other sports. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 08:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No consistency would be to have a consistent article title that has been consistent for a consistent amount of time. CullenNZ (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but these requested moves are completely retarded. There is clear opposition to the initial move of this page, so let's not be stirring more. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Civil please Gnevin (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would stop throwing that policy around as if everything is so highly offensive and "uncivil".

If you start being civil, people will 'stop throwing it around'. Have you read it? hippo43 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that there is strong opposition to the original move, and so proposing more when discussion is still ongoing is hardly going to go down well, is it? Nouse4aname (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose, and change back to All Blacks while we're at it. Under the Naming conventions policy, the common name should be used rather than the technically correct one which isn't in general use. A google search shows more than 3 million hits for 'All Blacks' (1.5 million in conjunction with 'rugby') and only 805 for 'New Zealand national rugby union team', many of which seem to refer to the sevens team. Why should this be an exception to the naming policy, especially when it is so clear what the commonly used name is? (apologies for not reading through the screeds above - if there is a good reason for ignoring the policy I will accept that)--Helenalex (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

CullenNZ, you are intentionally creating misunderstandings when there is no need. Sure, List of New Zealand international rugby union footballers could refer to New Zealand nationals who play for other national teams, but equally List of Ireland national rugby union footballers could refer to Irish people playing for other national teams too. Also, when have you ever heard the British and Irish Lions referred to as anything else? New Zealand are rarely referred to as the All Blacks when reporting results, except as an informal nickname, but the Lions only have one name. Anyway, the above move was performed for all the right reasons, so get over it and stop being an obstruction. – Pee Jay 11:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Irish one has to be Irish

national rugby union footballers because the Ireland national team don't go by any other common name unless I'm mistaken. And British and Irish Lions could be mistaken for meaning lions that could be found at British and Irish zoos. It should be using the while consistency argument British and Irish multi-national rugby union team. Otherwise some pretty unfair logic, club teams can have nicknames, national teams can't but multi-national teams can?! New Zealand aren't also referred to as New Zealand national rugby union team in reports either so why is the article called that? Either it should be New Zealand, it can't be because that refers to the country or it can be a common disambiguous name the team is known as, how about the All Blacks, which is a term the English first came up with, funnily enough. How am I being an obstruction the move was for hardly the right reasons, just look at the straw poll 6 supports to 4 oppose, and no more convincing arguemnts in the discussion that have been stated in previous failed attempts to get it to New Zealand national rugby union team, that is not a clear consensus to move an article from where it had been for four and a half years. I don't understand the get over it part, is it the fact that I'm bringing up quite valid points as to why the move was wrong and you don't want to hear about it or get over it like you did when previous moves were rejected but you constantly requested the article to be moved. Please advise. CullenNZ (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"British and Irish Lions" is not a nickname; it's the name of the team. "All Blacks", however, is a nickname that has been trademarked and marketed so well that people now think that it's actually the name of the team. Anyway, who said that national teams can't have nicknames? Of course they can have nicknames, just like clubs can, but we don't title articles after those nicknames for either clubs or national teams. You're right, though, in saying that it could be argued that the article should be titled "New Zealand". However, as you said, that would create confusion with the country itself and its many national sports teams. But then that could be said of any country. Why don't we title the England national football team article as Three Lions or the Brazil national football team article as A Seleção? Because those are nicknames! The New Zealand national cricket team and New Zealand national football team aren't located at Black Caps or All Whites for exactly the same reason. Finally, most of the "Oppose" !votes in the straw poll were based on a section in WP:NC that was added without discussion 18 months ago. I hardly think that basing an argument on something that was unilaterally added to policy is a good idea. – Pee Jay 12:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You have casually ignored the fact that this article was at All Blacks months if not years before someone added that bit to the naming conventions and in that time it was at All Blacks it got promoted to GA, then to FA and was featured on Main Page. All while the article was at All Blacks. Anyway British and Irish Lions is intrinsically more ambiguous than All Blacks, like I stated before people who don't know about rugby will hear British and Irish Lions and think you're talking about big cats found in zoos across Ireland and UK. Really should be moved but since it's a team you support it ain't going to be is it. And you said All Blacks is a nickname that has been trademarked and marketed so well that people think it's the team name, then it's succeeded in becoming a common name for the team then. The Laureus World Sports awards nominated the All Blacks [14] (notice not the New Zealand national rugby union team) as sports team of the year, if they end up nominating Three Lions and A Seleção as teams of the year rather than the England and Brazil national football teams feel free to request a move for them although funnily enough in 2003 [15]. I'm pretty sure the 4 oppose votes would have still oppose a move to New Zealand national rugby union team and if the opinion of the closing admin was that he thought they only voted oppose because of the addition of note in WP:NC, then he should have just removed the note and started a new straw poll not just move the article and say oh yeah they would have supported the move, it's doesn't make sense. But I guess my points are moot anyway like last time you'll get one of your British admin mates to move the articles without clear consensus. CullenNZ (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since "Lions" is capitalised, there should be no ambiguity. Like I said, you're intentionally looking for problems here when there are none. The article was created at All Blacks in December 2002, and then seemingly ignored when the naming conventions for sports teams were drawn up. However, just because something has been a particular way for SIX YEARS does not mean that that way is correct. – Pee Jay 15:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again you missed the fact there was no clear consensus to move the article from where it had been for as you say SIX YEARS, just like previous occasions there wasn't, normal policy is to leave the article where it is so it should have stayed at All Blacks as it had for SIX YEARS but somehow you got one of your mates to move it, that way isn't correct. I don't understand your point about the Lions, All Blacks is also a very disambiguous term too but one rule for your team and another for the ones you don't support eh. Oh and seemingly ignored when naming conventions were drawn up wow, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel for trying to find reasons why the article shouldn't be at All Blacks. The one of the many reasons why the article was at All Blacks is it's as common, if not more commonly used than the term New Zealand is for the team. The All Blacks didn't need to explicity appear in the sporting naming conventions for people to know it is the common name for the team. If you think the use of All Blacks is wrong, may I suggest you try and get the NZRU to remove the phrase All Blacks below the silver fern logo on their jerseys as well as moving the official website from allblacks.com and write a letter of disgust to the people who do the Laureus World Sports awards who despite the fact they name the other national sports team as [country] [sport] team, they just named the All Blacks as just the All Blacks. Or just like last time get someone to move these requested articles to save you blushes as you know your POV on this matter hasn't really got any legs to stand on. CullenNZ (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting this idea that I somehow coerced the closing admin into moving the article, but you really should assume good faith. Can you prove that the term "All Blacks" is more commonly used than "New Zealand" for the entirety of the English-speaking community? I can understand that being the case in New Zealand, but certainly not in the UK or the USA. And why should I ask the NZRU to remove the phrase from their shirts? They can put whatever they like on their shirts. It's a marketing device! Finally, get stuffed with your accusations of corruption. Some people here actually have some integrity, rather than having to resort to mud-slinging. – Pee Jay 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, can you prove that New Zealand is used more than All Blacks? I see All Blacks used almost exclusively in NZ, with NZ and AB cropping up pretty much evenly else where. The fact is that the NZRU name the team and refer to the team as the All Blacks. Just because some media outlets use New Zealand does not mean that they are correct in doing so. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So this part of your argument presumes that the NZRU decide the name of the team? The NZRU itself lists the team as New Zealand in its own results and fixtures. Likewise, the IRB, the governing body of rugby worldwide, uses 'New Zealand'. Are you telling us that these bodies are also not correct in doing so? Have you actually read the discussion above?

hippo43 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NZRU and IRB also refer to the team as the All Blacks, just because they refer to them as New Zealand at times doesn't make the All Blacks a less common name for the team, which I think is what you are trying to argue.

No, it isn't. I haven't argued that 'New Zealand' is more common. The naming convention says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" - it doesn't mention simply counting uses of a term, either in general or by counting Google hits.

hippo43 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And how would you prove what is an easily recognisable term, surely having numerous articles refer to the term All Blacks numerous times does mean it is easily recognisable to most English readers. I think you're just avoiding the fact that you won't be able to find any articles that refers to the team as solely New Zealand throughout the entire article. CullenNZ (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this article all references to the team is All Blacks, only reference to New Zealand is the physical country itself and it's a British paper too, which was a region that some stated don't know who the All Blacks are. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/australia/4344194/Former-All-Black-David-Kirk-becomes-Australian-citizen.html Please find any newspaper web article where New Zealand is solely used to describe the team in question, you'll probably find the term All Blacks once, if not two or three times in the same article. And like the article I pointed out, there are times the phrase All Blacks is used far more than New Zealand, or New Zealand isn't used at all. Which all means the common name for the team is All Blacks but I'm sure the people in denial of the team being commonly called the All Blacks will ignore any contrary evidence to their views. CullenNZ (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does Peejay constantly miss out the fact that it was up to him to prove New Zealand was more commonly used than All Blacks seeing as the page was at All Blacks and it was requested to be moved and then it got moved without the needed clear consensus to a self-referencing barely used title, how is British and Irish Lions a reference that they are a rugby union team by the way, where's the consistency, And I don't take kindly to remarks of me being a mudslinger, I wasn't the one who said get over it and then when I don't have any more rational points to bring up, I claim to have integrity as if that instantly wins the debate. CullenNZ (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, and change the main article back to All Blacks - WP:COMMON - fchd (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, with the exception of Haka of the All Blacks which should go to Haka (rugby) as the All Blacks aren't the only NZ representative side to do the haka. The Kiwis also do it and I'm pretty sure that the sevens side do as well.GordyB (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Kiwis do a different Haka, but not completely sure on that Mattlore (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks the same to me though I'm no expert. The only difference is that the Kiwis have never done the throat slitting variant.GordyB (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When articles are moved I thought usually it would mean basically the same article apart from new title of course and then all instances in the article of a phrase that was previous title replaced with the new one or variant thereof . Now all of a sudden in order to make the Haka(rugby) work the article then instead needs to be added to, to describe the hakas of other NZ representative rugby teams(both union and league), just so the emphasis of the article isn't mainly just about the haka as performed by the All Blacks, who will have to be described in said article as the New Zealand national rugby union team. All that effort just to make sure the word All Blacks doesn't appear on Wikipedia. CullenNZ (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, with the exception of Haka of the All Blacks, as suggested by GordyB. For all the excellent reasons explained above numerous times. hippo43 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment I support the exception for the Haka of the All Blacks as outlined above Gnevin (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Support Consistency within the encyclopedia trumps nationalistic pride — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please move British and Irish Lions within the context of consistency within the encyclopedia trumps WP:COMMON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CullenNZ (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment so to recap we seem to have three discussions going on here; a) If main All Blacks page should have been moved to NZ nat RU team, b) the objections I bought up about the new name for the List of All Blacks page (and equally apply to category: All Blacks btw), c) the objections bought up about the new name for the Haka of the All Blacks page. Hopefully the consensus is that the pages in question should be consistent with the main page (ie either the main page is moved back to All Blacks or the other minor pages are moved as proposed) - where it breaks down is which option everyone prefers. Personally I don't mind either way as long as both All Blacks and New Zealand national rugby union team redirect to the same page. Mattlore (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Support It's just a matter of consistency with the other country. Stasm 12:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that people are supporting on just some warped concept of consistency. If an admin looks through the arguments against within this discussion and also in the section Consistency I feel that they'll know it's quite ridiculous to replace every instance of the common name All Blacks with New Zealand national rugby union team for sake of consistency, which has been stated numerous times is not a current Wikipedia policy or guideline and/or to be consistent with the naming convention of national sports teams which again I can't find as a policy or guideline. The guideline that should be considered when naming article WP:UCN may end up being neglected due to support based on arguments not based on guidelines if people who support this moves have their way. CullenNZ (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Consistency

Will people please stop banging on about consistency! Who gives a damn if the article title is now "consistent with the other rugby union teams". That is not important, nor is it a guideline or policy. The name of the team is the All Blacks. Why else would their official website be at allblacks.com and not newzealandnationalrugbyunionteam.com?. Again, the team name is the All Blacks, but they represent the country of New Zealand. As an article about the team, we should use the team's official name. It is what the NZRU call them, and it is they who decide on the team name. We don't call Microsoft the "Bill Gates American computer company" do we?

I have also just found this from the NZRU website [16] (emphasis added):

The All Blacks are New Zealand’s number one national rugby side and have rated amongst the best in the world for well over 100 years. Their name and distinctive all-black playing strip have become well known to rugby and non-rugby fans worldwide.

But wait, I thought non-rugby fans didn't know who the All Blacks are? Nouse4aname (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dublin's website is hill16.ie but it would be maddness to suggest we move Dublin to Hill16.ie because of the website name Gnevin (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nouse4aname is still misrepresenting the arguments in favour of 'New Zealand'. Moreover, the same NZRU website he quotes from refers to 'the New Zealand All Blacks' in its title, and calls the team 'New Zealand' in its own fixtures section.

As above, consistency is relevant to 2 of the 3 key considerations of the naming convention - avoiding ambiguity and making linking second nature.

hippo43 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then it can be suggested that New Zealand All Blacks is a far better article title than New Zealand national rugby union team, pity that if anybody uses exactly the same arguments to move British and Irish Lions to British and Irish multinational rugby union team somehow it's a different situation, don't see how it is really. CullenNZ (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference is, that the New Zealand team is a national team, the British and Irish Lions is not a national team. But is better likened to something like London XI, this article is about the national team representing New Zealand, that's why its suppose to be on New Zealand national rugby union team. It's easily shown with linkts to various newspapers and irb it self that it does not use All Blacks in official lists, such as the world ranking because that might give the idea of it not being a national team but a club. Other places that use New Zealand in official matters such as match reports. BBC [17] notice how they use New Zealand officially in the score, scorers and the rosters, and mixes New Zealand and All blacks in the text. The Guardian does the same (if you're gonna bang on about the headline being All blacks, they use nicknames for other teams as well in the headlines, but not in the scoresheet and other official places.) Skysports — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Another weak argument, British and Irish Lions play tests matches against other international teams, they are nothing like the London XI, therefore for consistency as an international rugby union side they should adhere to the same names given for other Test playing rugby union teams, if consistency has to be shown. The West Indies cricket team is also not a national team but they stick to the naming conventions as other international cricket sides too. Your BBC link proved nothing, they chose to use country names in their schedule, how does that prove that All Blacks is not a well known name for the team? And I have to place this once more as you always seem to ignore it, the Laureus Sports Awards nominated teams, let's take 2007 [18] for example FC Barcelona, Italy Men's Football team, Spanish basketball team but named the All Blacks well just the All Blacks. Why do they do this, they are not biased towards New Zealanders, they know it is a common name for the team, no other team nominated by Laureus had that honour because no other team have a more commonly used name. And last but not least that article about Liverpool, again didn't prove a thing, find an article that always refers to Liverpool as the Reds (and not Liverpool once) throughout then it maybe close to being the same as the link I gave that showed that All Blacks was the name exclusively given when referring to the team. CullenNZ (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet the IRB Awards call them 'New Zealand' when they win Team of the Year (not Country of the Year).

British & Irish Lions has no debate over its name, for reasons that are obvious to most. As I understand it, they used to play tests as 'The British Isles' and non-test games as the Lions (or British Lions) yet are now called the British & Irish Lions for political reasons. 'British & Irish' is not the name of that team, but 'New Zealand' is the name of this team - 'British & Irish Lions' and 'New Zealand' are consistent - they are both the correct name of the team.

hippo43 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again how is using the country name in the IRB Awards proving that All Blacks isn't a name for the team?

I didn't claim it 'proved' any such thing. I am also not saying that 'All Blacks' isn't one of the team's names. Have you actually read what I've written?

A lot of the times you've written stuff down you say it's not meant to prove/be implying something, why are you posting it then. And why the reliance of always saying have you actually read what I've written? when you feel your argument is flailing? CullenNZ (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First you said earlier that NZRU doesn't decide the name of the team, then because it says New Zealand in the IRB Awards it's the only name of the team.

I didn't say it was the only name of the team. I contrasted your attachment to the Laureus Awards with the IRB Awards, organised by the international governing body of rugby.

You posted earlier but 'New Zealand' is the name of this team, you should have also stated that All Blacks is also the name of the team too, of course I'm going to assume when you post that alone that you don't think All Blacks isn't the name of the team. 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm saying All Blacks is the name of the team doesn't mean New Zealand can't be used in parts when they need to use country names for consistency, they're interchangeable, all advocates of New Zealand national rugby union team as article title are saying that All Blacks isn't the name for team at all,

No, they aren't saying that. I suggest you read the debate carefully.

Again with that automatic petty remark CullenNZ (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

that almost censorship as displayed by the ridiculous proposed move requests where all instances of All Blacks is looking to be removed, so while all media correctly use the common name All Blacks it seems like Wikipedia is going to be the only place where the term may not be used at all apart from in the lead section for this article and that's not what Wikipedia is about, it shouldn't be restricting the common name for things.

I haven't argued that all mentions of 'All Blacks' be removed. In fact I added a fairly coninciliatory reference to 'All Blacks' in the lead the other day.

If you have a look at the first edit after the page was moved you'll see most instances of All Blacks were replaced with New Zealand in the lead section, and all the requested moves about are also removing All Blacks. Once those article titles are replaced why would All Blacks appear in the articles it will be a snowball effect in the new battle for consistency. I mean just take a look at the Haka of the All Blacks article, it would need an massive overhaul just to get it into line of the proposed Haka(rugby) page. And why would it stop there for all articles featuring the All Blacks. It may be crystal ball gazing on my part by but I do think that would happen. In the article space someone could say All Blacks isn't it there in the title so why is All Blacks here, we got clear consensus to call them New Zealand everywhere else so replace all instances of All Blacks with New Zealand (national rugby union team). CullenNZ (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why Laureus would name them All Blacks were other teams they name [country] [sport] team.

I can't see why I need to explain that. I don't see the Laureus Awards as somehow authoritative on this. If the Laureus Awards had used 'New Zealand', would you concede that 'New Zealand' is the correct name? I doubt it. Any body or event can use whatever name they choose - that doesn't make it the correct name for this article. Perhaps the fact that Adidas has made a huge investment in the rights to the NZRU's brands and is very keen to market the All Blacks brand has some bearing on this sort of thing. Adidas is a powerful company within sports marketing and has an obvious interest in pushing the 'All Blacks' brand, not 'New Zealand'.

The fact is Laureus, who award the only global sports awards as far as I can tell, uses the term alone without New Zealand without thinking people will be confused. The point maybe was not so much for targeted for you as seem now to acknowledge that All Blacks is a name for the team but for people who said it's just an informal nickname that isn't used much especially outside of New Zealand. The point is no other team is addressed by their "nickname" yet All Blacks is used without any other context proving that Laureus consider the name to be a commonly used, easily recognisable and disambiguous name for the team, they wouldn't use it otherwise. I don't understand your Adidas point, the team have been referred to commonly as the All Blacks since 1905, Adidas only started sponsoring them since 1999. CullenNZ (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If New Zealand is the name of the team again, I challenge you to find a news article that describes them six or more times solely as New Zealand without All Blacks being once, just like news articles only refer to the England rugby team as England/English, if I can easily find an article which referred the team solely as All Black(s) six times surely you can find one article that proves the other way is true. CullenNZ (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What would that prove? Why the emphasis on news articles over other sources? Perhaps because news media are more likely to use a nickname like 'All Blacks' for variety in their prose? hippo43 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No reliance of news articles is because they often state the common name of subjects eg more likely to use Tom Cruise as opposed to Thomas Cruise Mapother IV. CullenNZ (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They are to national rugby what London XI is to club football, they are not a [club/national team] but they play(ed) against other [clubs/national teams], it's not about All Blacks not being a common name among Rugby fans, but you seem to be under the impression that when every person in the world hear "All Blacks" they'll think "that's New Zealand's national rugby union team", All blacks as a term is ambiguous, this is why a naming convention for national sport teams have been developed, so we don't have "Hockey national team of England" "Spain international basketball team" "Brazil football team" "Australia basketball national team". Your West Indies cricket team argument fails as it's not located at "West Indies national cricket team" but rather "West Indies cricket team", probably to not imply that it is a national team, but a team representing multiple nations. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 12:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes All Blacks is ambiguous, that's why it was the article title for six years and it redirects to this article only. Wait that makes it disambiguous. British and Irish Lions aren't club or national team, what? They are like the West Indies, a team that represents multiple nations. I think you seem to be all out of arguments, really notice how West Indies still have cricket team at end of their article title why doesn't Great Britain and Ireland have rugby union team at the title. Let's use your argument. You seem to be under the impression that every person in the world when every person in the world hear "British and Irish Lions" they'll think "that's the Great Britain and Ireland multinational (combined) rugby union team". Please explain these three things, name what other uses of the term all blacks mean if it is ambiguous, why would Laureus use All Blacks when naming the team where they use [country][sport] team for their World Sports Awards and why does All Blacks come up in more google terms in referencing this specific team than New Zealand. Also two extra tasks please link to naming conventions for national sports teams, you have often brought this up yet you haven't linked to where that policy is and just like a homework task that hippo43 has,find an article that references this team solely as New Zealand six or more times and not All Blacks once because I earlier on found a UK Telegraph article that reference the term All Blacks six times and New Zealand no times so this should be easy as you're claiming that hardly anybody around the world apart from New Zealanders know them as the All Blacks. CullenNZ (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to hand out tasks will get you nowhere. I'd suggest you read the arguments above so you don't continue to misrepresent those who disagree with you. There is no need for me to find the article you are suggesting - if you read the discussion above, it will be clear that more or less everyone recognises that both terms are widely used.

Yes you can't prove that New Zealand is exclusively used in even one article to reference the team, what a surprise. CullenNZ (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest you are focusing too narrowly on 'articles' - statistical records and books, for example, are equally relevant sources. Journalists routinely use various terms and nicknames within the same article to avoid repetition - for example 'David Beckham', 'Beckham', 'Becks', 'the England captain', 'the Real Madrid midfielder' etc. I could easily find an article which referred to Clive Woodward as 'Woodward' or 'Sir Clive' more often than 'Clive Woodward', but that doesn't mean we should change the wikipedia article title to 'Woodward'.

Another weird point, I said find an article that references the team as New Zealand only six or more times, I found an article that managed to reference the team as All Blacks only six times. Please link to said articles that describes Clive Woodward as Sir Clive throughout(without mentioning the name Woodward once), or it describes the name Woodward only without ever referencing the name Clive once. Then you may have a point. CullenNZ (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Finding an article that doesn't mention 'New Zealand' once proves nothing important.

Yes it does, it proves that All Blacks alone in an article in reference to the team is not ambiguous at all, the Telegraph is hardly a minor news source. CullenNZ (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that nobody who supports 'All Blacks' has suggested changing instances of 'New Zealand', for example in tables and fixtures within Rugby World Cup or Tri Nations (rugby), to 'All Blacks', presumably because such a change would be ridiculous. As such, it seems clear that the team's 'proper name' is New Zealand.

hippo43 (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because nobody is looking to replace all references of term New Zealand with All Blacks, I reiterate the common name isn't the only name the team will go by which you seem to be implying.

No, I'm not implying that. Again, have you actually read this debate? Please stop guessing what I 'seem to be implying.'hippo43 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So if you post I note that nobody who supports 'All Blacks' has suggested changing instances of 'New Zealand' how is it meant to be implied, as I explained before the terms All Blacks and New Zealand aren't mutually exclusive, so there's no need to replace all instances of New Zealand with All Blacks, I would say that's what I think you are implying but you warned me not to second guess you so please be absolutely clear on what you mean or just use petty remarks like Again,have you actually read this debate? whichever is best for you. CullenNZ (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In official documents where a full name needs to be former American president will be known as William Jefferson Clinton, that's his proper name, it doesn't mean he stops being commonly known as Bill Clinton and that Bill Clinton needs to replace William Jefferson Clinton in said official documents, just like you are saying if All Blacks are a common name then it should replace New Zealand. CullenNZ (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions is a policy. WP:Consistency is an inactive project page. So given that the naming conventions policy clearly specifies that the common name of things should be used, why would the article not be called All Blacks? I can see the case for 'New Zealand' rather than 'All Blacks' in things like lists of results, where lack of consistency just looks weird, but in general articles I'm pretty sure people are more likely to use All Blacks than New Zealand national rugby union team, and it is the common name. --Helenalex (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you refer to the Sports team section, I'm pretty sure that only refers to clubs, and that the naming for national sides in any sport goes, "[country] national [sport] team" (which every other national teams in all other sports follows, as far as I know) — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 03:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet British and Irish Lions aren't a club team so you've tripped over your own argument. CullenNZ (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the general naming conventions, specifically WP:COMMONNAME, rather than the one for sports teams (which does seem to just cover clubs). I couldn't find the convention for national sports teams the you refer to. Could you link to it please? --Helenalex (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conflict includes these criteria for choosing between disputed names -

"A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

- Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)

- Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)

- Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

I suspect both sides of this argument will think this favours their own case, though it seems to me that 'the official current name' is obviously 'New Zealand', given its use in formal contexts.

In addition, the policy goes on to say:

"Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include: ... - Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?"

This suggests to me that the NZRU's trademarking of 'All Blacks' should have no bearing on this debate. hippo43 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet the All Blacks fit the objective criteria, are you trying to argue against your own point or something? CullenNZ (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On point one and three the answer is definitely yes for All Blacks (especially in google for the first one). On two I'm not so sure - the nzru site refers mostly to the All Blacks but this may not be the official name as used on contracts and things. I find it very difficult to see how this policy could be seen as supporting 'NZ national rugby union team', though. --Helenalex (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

'New Zealand' obviously fits these 3 criteria, in particular 'Is it the official current name of the subject?'

'All Blacks' is clearly not 'the official current name', per the NZRU and IRB usage, so doesn't fit all 3 criteria.

To be clear, I support the title 'New Zealand' which ends up disambiguated as 'New Zealand (national rugby union team)' or 'New Zealand national rugby union team'. Claiming, for example, that there aren't many Google results for 'New Zealand national rugby union team' misses the point. hippo43 (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk about being simply ridiculous in order to not acknowledge All Blacks as a common name for the team, if All Blacks is clearly not the official current name please link us to the NZRU and IRB press releases that states that is so, I mean if you say it is clearly not they are bound to have rejected the use of the term of All Blacks in any official capacity. I'm pretty sure we all know that All Blacks is more commonly used to described the team than New Zealand is but keep fighting that nonsensical fight of yours. May I also suggest you propose a move of Ronaldinho's wikipedia page as his official current name is Ronaldo de Assis Moreira. You've missed the point about google results as well, when searching for the specific team, All Blacks will come up more than the term New Zealand when talking about the country's top representative team. CullenNZ (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to talk facts.

1. Common usage: I don't think we've actually established this either way. You're probably right that a google search doesn't prove much (although it should still be looked at), so we need to explore other avenues. The naming disputes page suggests international organisations, major English language media, and reference works (and also geographic name servers and scientific nomenclature, which obviously don't apply). We need to check these out.

2. Official current name: Again, no one has come up with anything conclusive. This would be determined by the NZRU. We need to see if they have a proper 'official name' policy. If they don't, the most rational course of action would be to see what they use in formal circumstances.

3. Whether used by the subject themselves: NZRU would have some bearing on this too, but we should also look for quotes from the players. Do they refer to 'New Zealand' (as a team, not a country) or 'the All Blacks'?

If this argument is to be resolved we all (on both sides) need to stop asserting that our own point of view is clearly correct and obviously supported by policy and do some actual research.

I've created User talk:Helenalex/NZ rugby naming dispute as a place for us all to put all the info we dig up since just listing it here will get very disorganised. Hopefully once that's done a clear consensus will develop, or at the very least we will start arguing based on facts rather than 'I'm obviously right and you're obviously wrong!' --Helenalex (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I admire the intention, I don't think a separate page is the answer - this should be discussed here. Moreover, I can't see any prospect of a new consensus emerging, given the debate so far. The numerous criteria from the Naming Convention, Manual of Style and Naming Conflict page will still be interpreted differently by both sides, and none seems to be the crucial consideration. hippo43 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You addressed one thing about a new consensus, however there was never a new and clear consensus when it got moved from All Blacks to New Zealand national rugby union team a month ago.

The admin who made the move thought there was, and took into account the strong support on the project page.

Maybe you can direct me to the section in the requested moves policy where support in a related project page needs to be considered, I can't see it but if you can link me to it I will be grateful. By just looking at the requested move banners it says Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached So it should have been a clear consensus on this talk page alone and looking at the straw poll, I have incorrectly been saying it was 6 support and 4 oppose, in fact it was 5 support and 4 oppose, if the admin thinks that was a clear consensus he needs to consult a dictionary. Otherwise if that is a consensus it needs to be explained why did those 5 in support hold far more weight than those 4 who opposed? CullenNZ (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat this once again, when it got promoted to Good Article and then Featured Article then got put on Main page the people who promoted the article mustn't have seen any issue with it being called All Blacks. Therefore being that for six years surely the All Black name had fitted all naming convention criteria.

You're assuming the article title would have been subject to scrutiny then, and compared to possible alternatives. I don't see that this can be assumed. Furthermore, things change. The opinion of people in this recent debate is what matters here. Making assumptions about what people thought six years ago is unsound.hippo43 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't just decided six years ago and then left alone, you just need to look at this talk page's archives where people in the past also suggested the move to New Zealand national rugby union team, this recent move request wasn't all that different to all previous occasions apart from the fact an admin decided to move it without the required consensus, just to appease the whole consistency issue. CullenNZ (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Then all the closing admin wrote was that it was unfair that this article had a "nickname" where other rugby union teams didn't, which itself isn't even a Wikipedia policy, so they moved an article breaching an actual policy of moving articles only when there's a clear consensus just because they thought it was unfair that other teams have to stick to [country] national rugby union team, which despite other people have stated, is itself not entrenched in policy anywhere as far as I can see. But that means I do feel a bit of sympathy for those who advocated the move to New Zealand national rugby union team because the admin just took action, don't know if they've been to this article before or since moving it and just left the 'New Zealand national rugby union team' supporters to try and defend an action that never should have been carried out. I'm pretty sure no other article has been moved after six years of being at one place. CullenNZ (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a table to organise the various facts - should I move it to this page? I'm not optimistic about a consensus either, but you have to agree it would be an improvement if we started basing this on facts, even though we will inevitably disagree about their significance. --Helenalex (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CullenNZ, I've just read the Telegraph article you linked to. It mentions 'New Zealand' three times! Two of them could be read as referring to the team. At the very least they put All Blacks in context, so 'All Blacks' does not stand alone in that article. Try this one - http://goaustralia.about.com/od/eventsandfestivals/a/rugbyworldcup07.htm. 12 mentions of 'New Zealand' the team. No mention of 'All Blacks.' As I said above, however, this proves nothing particular in regard to this debate. hippo43 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Telegraph article, New Zealand is only in reference to the country, if you're implying that is in reference to the team you got to be kidding, if you substitute New Zealand with All Blacks (as both terms can be interchangeable in reference to the team)in that article it makes no sense. And you posted a link from About.com as if they are a major media source that decides name of this article is, yeah I agree with you that your point did end up proving nothing. And way to still avoid the main crux of the issue where an admin moved the article without clear consensus thereby breaching other Wikipedia policies. CullenNZ (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What a surprise. I found an article using NZ exclusively, suddenly it's not a good enough media source. So about.com is no good, the IRB stats, results, awards etc are no good, the NZRU results are no good.... But sources supporting your view are all fine?

I made no claim that the about.com article would decide the name of this article.

In the Telegraph article, they use New Zealand three times! Apart from 'grew up in New Zealand' the terms 'New Zealand' and '(the) All Blacks' are easily interchangeable.

hippo43 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the admin's decision to rename, I'm not avoiding it - my opinion is (unsurprisingly) that it was correct. The move was overwhelmingly supported on the project page, supported on this page, and, I feel, backed up by sound arguments. What did you expect me to think?

If you disagree, then I'm sure there is a process to follow in terms of complaining about the decision, though I don't know what it is. If a move back to 'All Blacks' depends on consensus here, then I don't think there's much chance of finding it.

hippo43 (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said articles that refer to the teams as New Zealand aren't good enough maybe it's you who needs to read the debate. Like I said if New Zealand is the more common name for the team it should be really easy to find articles from major news sources that use New Zealand exclusively when talking about the team. Let's talk about the Telegraph article New Zealand have suffered a shock loss after it was announced that the only All Blacks captain to hoist the rugby World Cup, David Kirk, has switched teams and become an Australian. Why would the All Blacks suffer a big shock, he is not currently associated with the team as a player, coach, manager, therefore it is referencing the country. New Zealand (the country) would be shocked because he becomes a citizen of Australia (the country), the All Blacks couldn't care less if he becomes an Australian citizen because it no way affects the rugby team. However Kirk said his heart still belonged to New Zealand and he would hold dual citizenship. It means the country as it goes on to talk about citizenship unless you're implying(which you warned me not to) that his heart belongs to the national rugby team and not the country as a whole. Same as when he states My heart, my emotion, my commitment of course is to New Zealand. Anyway how is moving a page without a clear consensus a correct one, you say project page has consensus then they should have posted on this talk page to then. Of course it's highly unlikely it will get moved back to All Blacks but that's only because no other admin isn't going to breach moving article policy like last time despite the fact the common name for the team is All Blacks and not New Zealand (national rugby union team). CullenNZ (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rugby Union does not rank highly as a major global sport. Lay-persons in the majority of nations would never have heard the term "All Black". The name of the article is descriptive and sensible.

Nice Article

I would like to get involved here a little bit ( no edit attacks from me and no edits without discussing dont worry) and will re read this page and the article over the next few days, weeks. Personally out front, I think its the best game. So i may be a bit biased. --Jones.liam (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)