Talk:Super Rugby/Archive 1

older comments

When should we move the article to Super 14? --Dale Arnett 19:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say "any time". The last Super 12 is all finished up, anything that happens now is the leadup to the first season of the Super 14. —Stormie 03:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jerseys

Most of the jerseys in the infoboxes are screwed up. Could someone please try and fix them. Most teams are currently just blank/black. (unsigned comment)

I can live with the use of the word 'kit', since it is standardised across all super 14 teams, even though it is not Australian usage in rugby. But it could surely be more helpfully descriptive than '1st kit' and '2nd kit.' From the gear worn by the team so far this year in actual play, I conclude that 1st and 2nd kit is, in someone's usage, the same as 'home' and 'away' kit. The 1st/2nd terminology is not universal, though, nor very descriptive. I wonder if we could simply name these outfits home and away? Or is there some further wrinkle that I am unaware of that makes it not so simple? This is an important issue with practical effect, since so many teams feature blue (including my own Brumbies) making it important to check the opposition's away gear before deciding what to wear to the ground! I am loathe to change these terms myself though, since it is standard format through all super 14, and certainly would like to canvass some diverse opinion first. What do people think? Deoxyribonucleic acid trip (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super 10

Does anyone know anything about the Super 10 competition- I believe the Reds won it in 1995. Ronan.evans 09:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And why don't commentators incorporate Super 10 into the term "Super Rugby?" Ronan.evans 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Super 10 (Southern Hemisphere competition) for the Super 10. I guess the reason it doesn't get combined with Super 12/14 in discussions is due to the difference in organization - Super 10 was the end of the amateur era of rugby, the Super 12 was the start of the professional era. Also the Super 12/14 are organized by SANZAR who as far as I know were founded to organize the Super 12 and Tri Nations Series, and didn't exist in the Super 10 days. —Stormie 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super 12 Logo

Can anyone find a Super 12 Logo that can be used here? 202.67.90.66 21:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This google images search reveals a few different versions of the Super 12 logo, most with a different sponsors' name blazoned across it. Perhaps one of those could be yoinked for fair use? —Stormie 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we did that I think we should have one from each country that participated in the Super 12. Otherwise some users would be unfamiliar with the logo. 58.178.49.102 07:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I know that Super 12 redirects to this article, but don't you think a more appropriate title would be "Super Rugby" with both Super 14 and Super 12 redirecting to it? Thus the term would be inclusive of the competition as a whole, whose history spans back to 1996 and does not automatically "stop" when the name changed... -- PageantUpdater 09:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think because the competition is more commonly known as Super 14 then it shouldn't change to Super Rugby. Super Rugby does redirect to Super 14 so I think it's ok. Guinness Premiership is the title of the wiki-article on the Premier Rugby Union competition in England even though it's been known by several other names. Anyway I think the title Super 14 is best. - Shudda ^talk 10:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Championship templates

I'm not a huge fan of the Super 12 champions template, and the Super 14. I don't really see the purpose of them, and as posted in the discussion above, the Super 12 does not stop once the name changed (so why two templates?). I think this notion needs to be applied to a number of other Super rugby articles, where it seems the two competitions are actually different, but they really, are not different. Cvene64 04:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that when the Crusaders won this year, Ian Jones said the "inargural Super 14 champions" at the trophy presentation.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catchment?

Should we include the catchments of each Super team in the table? Ie. Cheetahs (Free State etc.)........?Narrasawa 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

A peer review has been started. See the WikiProject Rugby union banner at the top. Please add any comments on the article. - Shudda ^talk 02:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box at the bottom of team pages

Some team pages seem to have as many as three boxes at the foot of their page. It seems very cluttered and annoying, especially when you just want to navigate through all the 14 teams, and you have to tick [show] to reveal the thing. We should have a box like most other sports leagues. Ozkid20 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders

Hi, I've requested a peer review for Crusaders. Could everyone please take a look and help out? I'm trying to get the article up to Featured Article standard, and would like any feedback I can get. You can add any comments here. Thanks a lot! - Shudda ^talk 03:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders nominated for Featured Article

I have nominated Crusaders (rugby) for Featured Article status. Please leave a comments on the article on the comments page here. Any assistance replying to peoples comments, or fixing problems would be greatly appreciated. It would be nice to get another FA for the project. - Shudda ^talk 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super 12 section

Edited Super 12 section slightly - are scores for matches really needed? Xt828 06:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History: Future of the Super 14

In addition to what is already on the page, there is also are some new articles that relate to this from super14.com: 'Gold Coast wants a Super 14 team' - from Feb 2nd 2008, 'O'Neil plans to revitalise the Super 14'- from 30th Jan 2008 and 'Brumbies back extended Super 14'- from 27th Jan 2008, as well as rugbyheaven.com.au: 'West is best for expansion: resurrected Rams to be Sydney's second Super side'- from Feb 1st 2008 and 'Super idea, bad timing - Parra'- from Feb 2nd 2008.

Perhaps the author of 'Future of the Super 14' would like to view these articles and add to the paragraph- otherwise I will make additions myself- and let the editing process take care of the rest. --SLambert9901 (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deans calls expansion could be worked into the article. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crowds

We need to get some reliable crowd figures in the article. All i can ever find is contradictory/incomplete numbers released by each union. Is there a central source? Soundabuser (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super 15?

Isn't this league now the Super 15? Please see The Super 15. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, no. As I understand it, the current proposal (not yet officially confirmed?) is to expand to 15 teams in 2011. There is still at least one season as the Super 14. --Stormie (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past results

Should we create boxes with the colours of the teams to replace the flags, like [:Image:University_colours.png]? It could make it easier to identify, especially since the NZ and Aus flags like very similar in its current form...thoughts? Cvene64 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago, however my idea was a bit different. We could create cheap knocks offs of the logos, like for the Crusaders we could have a sword on a red/black background or something. The problem with colours is that some teams have similar colours, like the Highlanders and the Force or the Bulls and the Waratahs for example.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the colours are pretty similar, but I think if we made up logos, some people may actually believe that they are the official ones, and that could be a bit of a problem..Cvene64 09:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the colours are the same - the Force and the Highlanders both have Blue and Yellow! Perhaps we could have something like Image:User browser firefox.png, which is a free version of Image:Firefox-logo.png. Just a thought.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brumbies also have Blue and Yellow (albeit a darker blue). ronan.evans 07:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think team colours would be better than national flags. I mean, these are NOT national representative teams!Ordinary Person (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record for wins in a season

Either I'm crazy or the record for wins in a season is incorrect, as the Crusaders won 13 in their undefeated 2002 season. Or is this intended to refer to regular season wins? Alvie3 (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Super 15?

When should this article be moved? The 2010 Super 14 is now over, and next season the tournement will be known as the Super 15. Should it be moved straight away, or should we wait until next year? Crazydude22 (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best time will be just after the SANZAR series is over i.e after the Tri-Nations..--Stemoc (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yours is an undertstandable statement, but is not the 2010 Trinations part of the 2010-11 season (as well as the new Super 15 series, I mean)? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes far more sense to move this article to Super Rugby than Super 15. This article details the full history and as such serves as an anchor article for far more than next years Super 15 competition. Otherwise we will be moving it again once the next expansion to Super 21 or whatever it may possibly be. SauliH (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a quick look and the term is in common usage when discussing the full history of the competition: Reds website, Waratahs site (In 2005 the HSBC Waratahs reached their first ever Super Rugby Final, losi...), Crusaders site (the seven time Super rugby champions, was a player ) The official website of Super rugby in NZ is superrugby.com.nz. Even the navigation template used on WP is titled Super Rugby. SauliH (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second SauliH's thoughts.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd --Stemoc (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French teams say they won the national championship x times as the Top 14 championship has had various names just as had Super Rugby. Each of the sites listed says Super 14 at least as often as it says Super Rubgy . Super 15 will be the WP:COMMONNAME Gnevin (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S If anything Guinness_Premiership and Magner's league are more like to change name before a other Super Rugby expansion takes place Gnevin (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that Super 15 is literally about next years competition. This article is the main broad article for Super Rugby as far back as Super 6, and as such needs a broader term than the modern one. Other articles/categories/templates that specifically deal with one era (for want of a better descriptor) should not change to Super Rugby just because of this name change. In fact someone (not me) COULD assert that Super 6, Super 10, Super 12, Super 14, and now Super 15 each could have their own main articles.SauliH (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well whatever decision gets made, from 2011, the competition will be called "2011 Super 15 season" and NOT "2011 Super Rugby season" ...--Stemoc (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name the article Super Rugby and wp:redirect various year names to the main article. If needs be, seasons can have their own individual articles and names eg. 2010 Super 14 season, 2011 super 15 Season. Messy one this, no ones suggestions completely solve the problem G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ever the decision we need to consider the whole contents of Category:Super_rugby as we've got Category:Super Rugby finals but as I say below we also have Super_12_Champions and Super_14_champions. Also are Super 6 and Super 10 really part of the Super Rugby brand Gnevin (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gainline: you make a good point with the ability of having sub articles for different seasons (providing they are notable enough). Gnevin: Super 6 and Super 10? It would be interesting to research that some, the whole S12/14 emphasis seems to be prevalent when looking at stats and so forth on the team websites (very little about S6 or S10). It could be because of the whole sanctioned professionalism that coincided with the start of S12. S6/10 certainly are at least prehistory to the s12/14/15 tournaments, and fill out where the beginnings of this current competition came from.SauliH (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gnevin, just noticed the section headings with regards to pre/post? Did you find some information on this. The delineation of pre/post does not have any explanation, and is opaque especially when the term Super is used at all iterations of the comp.SauliH (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The term 'Super' obviously covers both: pre- and post-restructure (and professionalisation). Would it be helpful to have a headings that make this more clear? I like the logic of the sequence, and offer the following suggestion:

Super Rugby Not Yet Professional: Super 6, Super 10

Super Rugby - Professional: Super 12 ...

Also, "Waikato won the first season 29–12 over Auckland." Was this 1992? (Should this be explicit?)
--wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To me Super 6,10 are part of the pre history of Super Rugby 12,14,15 but Super 6 and 10 are just competitions with similar name that ended with Super 12 rather than continues as Super 14 is a continuation of Super 12. If this makes sense? Would other agree with this assessment that Super 6, 10 and Super 12,14,15 are 2 different competitions (possibly 3 as Super 6 and 10 share little in common)? Gnevin (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SANZAR section headings suffice for me (although I think it was as much professionalism/amateurism as SANZAR). This article may be helpfulRugby in South Africa. From what I read about the development of the Super comp, S6 was a development of the Pacific comp, which the began to morph into a SH comp with the inclusion of SA in the S10 (Tonga competed in 95, and Samoa in 93-94). Then with professionalism, the pacific connection was shedded completely, and the SANZAR alliance formed. I think this whole transition is very interesting, and should deserve some more development. I would like to know the POV of the pacific nations being sidelined. Did they take their sidelining lying down, or was their controversy involved. Of course expenses to play across the whole SH would have had their impact. SauliH (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Super Rugby is sometimes used when talking about the Super 14 and Super 12 collectively. Why S12,14 and 15 and not S6,10 ? Gnevin (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Should Super_12_Champions and Super_14_champions merge as Super Rugby Champions ? Gnevin (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super 14 → Super Rugby — As per discussion above, from what I see, we reached a level of consensus, so this request is more a straw poll to confirm this. SauliH (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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

Support SauliH (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with links to different seasons G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We should not have to change the title of the article every time the number of teams changes. – Pee Jay 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where will 2010_Super_14_season be at current title or 2010_Super_Rugby_season Gnevin (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2010 season was a Super 14 season, so there is no reason for changing that. When the article is specific to a particuler era of the comp, then the more exacting name should be used.SauliH (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense. AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom Gnevin (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Merge

I've placed merge tags on these pages now. Should Super_12_Champions and Super_14_champions merge as Super Rugby Champions ? Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to past winners tables

I think that the Super 10 winners table should be removed, as those seasons are not a part of Super Rugby in the way that the Super 12 and 14 seasons were. The Super 6 and 10 should and already are mentioned in the history section, but I don't think that those seasons champions should be listed on the Super Rugby article in the the way that the Super 12 and 14 champions are. Crazydude22 (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the Super 10 winners table from the article, and moved it to the Super 10 article. Crazydude22 (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to not have responded to your proposal. Even though S10 was in the distant past, it is still Super rugby. Yes the super brand has developed to where it is today, which is completely different to then, but it is not all about today. the history is notable too.SauliH (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that the Super 10 is part of the history of where rugby is today, but when you look at all the records kept for Super Rugby, the Super 10 is not included for any of those. Crazydude22 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What source for one? I don't think that that should be a measure of inclusion or not either, especially when it's inclusion is not harmful to the subject, rather it develops a more comprehensive subject coverage. If you feel a clearer distinction needs to be made between the amateur era and professional era, then the article should develop further in that direction. SauliH (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the Super 10 results don't hurt anyone, but I feel that they don't belong. We don't have Super 6 results on this page either. As for sources, here: http://www.super14.com/about/super14.asp, this very article also states that: "Super Rugby is the largest Rugby union competition in the southern hemisphere and includes the Super 12, Super 14 and Super 15 competitions".Crazydude22 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no complaint so I am removing the Super 10 champions again.Crazydude22 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold about! no complaint?? I think your removal is out of order.~~ SauliH (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that the present state of Super Rugby is 12/14/15, but that does not preclude s10 from the subject. One of the points I made earlier, was what harm is done by it's inclusion? Super 6 results DO have a place on this page also - and there inculsion does no harm either. The pre-history of Super competition should have greater elucidation, as it shows from where this competition has grown:providing that there is no undue weight given to it granted. If your adamant in your position then make an alternate proposal of where these results should be included, rather than ditched to the wind. SauliH (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I concede. I recall now that Super 10 does have it's own article and that the results are appropriately included there. My argument above was completely based on the fact that there was not an article - and I apologize for not confirming that before writing ... carry on and sorry for the confusion. SauliH (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]