Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Stadium map

Would someone clever please change the map used to show the location of the stadiums used? The one currently shown is the "provinces of New Zealand" from the late 1800s. A plain NZ map would be suitable, or perhaps a map with the Super 14 regions (without region names). Just a thought. Jake, Wgtn NZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.14.91 (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, using the standard NZ location map which has region divisions. I've changed the method used to Template:Location map many also. XLerate (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Franchise instead of club?

In the Current squad section we list the players under Pos, Player, DoB/Age, Caps and Club. Wouldn't we be better to say Franchise instead of Club? For instance, the Hurricanes is a franchise, most certainly not a club. Also, in an article about New Zealand's national team do we really need 26 NZ flags beside the team memers? They seem superfluous to me. Moriori (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would actually prefer if we had Provinces listed instead of Franchises. When they read out the team they don't say "Aaron Cruden, Hurricanes" they say "Aaron Cruden, Manawatu". Alternatively we could just list both. Mick28 (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed from franchises to provinces. 125.237.189.14 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, why not list both the Super 14 and provincial team of the players? This makes more sense than the status quo as most of these guys rarely if ever play provincial rugby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.25.110 (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason not to list Super 14/15 franchises is because they frequently do not represent more than a transitory connection. Super rugby franchises in NZ operate a virtual draft system, whereby the best players are distributed among teams with minimal heed for their geographic origin. For example, Colin Slade of Canterbury will in 2011 play for the Highlanders, not the Crusadars, while Hawkes Bay's Zac Guilford is likely to play for the Crusaders again, not the Hurricanes. Thus franchise tags mean little while provincial ties reflect long-term allegiances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.84.117 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Review of Article Title and References to All Blacks

I was shocked today to check in on this article for the first time in years and discover that it has been damaged. The naming convention criteria - recognisable, easy to find, precise, concise and consistent - seem to have been ignored on a wholesale basis for reasons that remain entirely unclear to me, despite having read the extensive discussion in full. A wealth of evidence has been presented that the name of the team concerned is the All Blacks, down to it being printed on players' jerseys and intellectual property rights to it being held by the New Zealand Rugby Football Union. The only response to this seems to have been that national rugby teams are conventionally referred to by their geographical provenance - true, but beside the point (as has been illustrated by reference to the Boston RedSox, though it might as easily have been shown by reference to Bolton Wanderers, the Chennai Super Kings or the Pittsburgh Steelers).

But the argument about whether 'All Blacks' is a name or a nickname isn't really the point. Let's set aside all the to and fro and look at where we've ended up.

The net results of this striking foolishness have been that the article title is now clumsy, inaccurate (NZ representative rugby union teams include the Black Ferns plus men and women's sevens teams and the Junior All Blacks, to name only a few) and extremely obscure (Wikipedia may well be the only venue where the phrase 'New Zealand national rugby union team' is used). The fault with the title then poisons the opening of the article itself, which now begins with a reference consistent with the title (i.e., to 'the New Zealand national rugby union team'), but at odds with all conventional usage.

Checking back to the naming convention criteria:

Recognisable? No. Easy to find? No. Precise? Not at all. Concise? Heavens, no...

...Consistent - YES!!!

And it's a nice big capitalised yes to this last one, because it now appears that all international rugby union teams have been treated in a similarly foolish manner. The article on the Springboks is titled 'South African national rugby union team'. The article on the Wallabies is titled 'Australian national rugby union team'. The articles on Los Pumas, on Manu Samoa, on the US Eagles... well, you get the picture. Unlike in the instance of the All Blacks, perhaps one might argue the toss in some of these cases as to whether they are team names or nicknames; regardless, they all fulfil the naming criteria above, unlike the current generic descriptions, and - more importantly - they reflect actual rugby usuage.

I'm baffled to think how this weird, bureaucratic, pseudo-legalistic wording may have come to pass. Perhaps some leading the editing process were unfamiliar with rugby union. It really doesn't matter - this needs to be fixed. The status quo is utterly, embarrassingly, at odds with common sense, conventional usage and Wikipedia's article naming conventions. As an interim measure I will revert the opening of the article to a wording that approaches the sensible. I expect a change to the title to happen in short order, and hope that the other articles on international rugby union teams will be fixed quickly.125.237.191.89 (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of the periodic reversion of the opening sentence of the article to newspeak, let's observe that saying 'the New Zealand national rugby union team represents New Zealand in rugby union', is the equivalent of stating 'the blue spotted gecko is a gecko that is blue and has spots'. Please let's not waste any more time on this nonsense. 125.237.189.14 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful! Someone might change the intro to our Junior All Blacks article from the existing "The Junior All Blacks are a New Zealand rugby union team" to "The New Zealand national junior rugby union team, commonly known as the Junior All Blacks........". Moriori (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this, as I stated at the time of change to the current absurd title. The title of this article has fallen victim to a single-minded obsession with consistency, replacing a household name with a tedious string of adjectives. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The move request attracted seven editors, three of whom opposed. Given the ongoing concern from numerous editors, I'd suggest that another move request be made to put it back to All Blacks with a summary of the arguments and sources that have been given in favour, and that the move request be widely notified to projects and editors who have voiced any opinions here so that it gets a better turnout. I don't think there was ever a strong enough consensus to move, and I suspect there will be a strong enough consensus to move back. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Jvt2111 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been confused by this issue for months. The All Blacks are of great cultural significance to New Zealand - there is a strong case for both the team and its name being taonga. There is no question that the team name is anything but the All Blacks, just as the Scarlets are not "Llanelli" and Arsenal is not "North London". When the team is referred to as "New Zealand", the usage is descriptive in the same way as referring to the Crusaders as "Canterbury" or calling the Tampa Bay Buccaneers "Tampa". Arguing baselessly that the All Blacks are not the All Blacks could be interpreted as a sharp insult to our culture. Happily, New Zealanders are generally fairly passive types who assume others are well-intentioned, and thus the arguments put forward by those who support the name of the article being "The All Blacks" have been relentlessly rational.

But I believe I've had an epiphany of sorts. I remembered that during the 2005 Lions tour of New Zealand Clive Woodward generated some minor publicity by consistently refusing to refer to the All Blacks as such; instead, he made a point of calling them "New Zealand". This was a source of some consternation at the time because it was needlessly insulting. Woodward seemed to believe the team somehow derived power from its name and that refusing to acknowledge that name would lessen the All Blacks' power. He was probably wrong: the Lions lost the series 3-0 (shades of Muhammad Ali vs. Ernie Terrell, perhaps?).

This bloke's idea has been taken up by others (a minute on google unearthed http://www.scumv.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28103). So now I'm wondering if maybe there is some sort of ulterior motive behind the baffling support for "The New Zealand National Rugby Union Team".

Another, more charitable interpretation might be that this debate reflects geniune cultural differences. The home nations' teams have no names beyond those of the countries they represent. It may therefore be a bit difficult for Northern hemisphere types to understand that national teams can have names beyond the areas they represent. But they see this concept in application to their local teams (Harlequins, Ospreys, Saracens et al) and in fact, the British and Irish Lions provide a glaring example of a super-national representative team with a name beyond that of the countries represented - it would be untenable to claim that their name is "Britain and Ireland". (As a matter of interest, one may visit their Wikipedia page under the title "British and Irish Lions", not "British and Irish Representative Rugby Union Team"). Thus, it's unlikely that cultural differences are the root cause.

So I'm left with the unsettling suspicion that some motives are not pure. I hope I'm wrong.

Let's renew this debate - but not yet. The Southern hemisphere is baking hot right now and I suspect few contibutions would be forthcoming until rugby starts up again. In an attempt to achieve fairness for both North and South, why not make a move request at the time of the international matches at the end of the Northern winter? Then, rugby is alive in both halves of the world.

Jvt2111 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The thought that some editors may wish to "play down" the All Blacks by replacing their name with a descriptive phrase had occured to me to, but I didn't want to raise it because I preferred to assume good faith and I think the arguments for the best title being "All Blacks" are overwhelming without need for casting aspirsions on editors. However, speaking in general terms it's a reasonable and not-paranoid concern in the hypercompetitive context of sport team fans. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I should assume good faith but I have been finding it increasingly difficult in this context. Allow me to qualify my comments above. I certainly do not assume that all who come down for the article title being "The New Zealand National Rugby Union Team" have ulterior motives - I simply wonder if support for this approach began in such a place. In the interests of fairness I must also point out that the idea of refusing to call the All Blacks the All Blacks seems to have originated with an Australian (albeit one acting as an assistant coach to the Welsh team at the time), Scott Johnson: http://tvnz.co.nz/content/459048. Jvt2111 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

JVT, the current article title was reached through consensus here and at the project page. It is not vandalism to ensure that the lead reflects that and the MOS preferred style. If you want to change things, please discuss and reach a new consensus here first. --hippo43 (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hippo, the current article title is a separate (though connected) issue to the lead. As to the article title, earlier discussions (years earlier, I note) certainly reveal no consensus. As to the lead, as proposed by you it reads clumsily, almost nonsensically, is at odds with common sense and common usage, and is contrary to the MOS. Constantly reverting to awful, inelegant language certainly does amount to vandalism. If you want to change things, please discuss and reach a consensus here first. Jvt2111 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

JVT, it's not vandalism to revert to consensus, nor is it vandalism to attempt to compromise with more succinct language. Accusations of vandalism go against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and are not conducive to a collaborative approach.

You could well take your own advice "If you want to change things, please discuss and reach a consensus here first." The lead which I restored is not "proposed by" me. It was the consensus opening from when the article was renamed (December 2008) for over a year, before becoming the subject of endless reverts over the last few months, without a new consensus being reached via dscussion here.

The MOS (WP:LEAD) states "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." It is possible, so should be here.

I do agree that the longer version isn't elegant. IMO, "The New Zealand national rugby union team is known as the All Blacks." is obviously an improvement on "The NZ national RU team, known as the ABs, represents NZ in rugby union". --hippo43 (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Hippo, I believe you are confusing two issues. You seem to be keen to discuss the article name. While I am happy to do so, it is certainly not at issue right now and I'm a bit baffled as to why you keep returning to it. There most certainly is a process for reviewing it, and as you have surely read above I proposed a couple of weeks ago that this process be kicked off around the next northern-southern hemisphere tests.

What is at issue is the article lead: this is a separate matter to the article name (though of course they are connected). I see no evidence on this discussion page that any consensus was reached on the lead; if anything, I see a weight of argument supporting the formulation I propose. I assume you are continually reverting in good faith, and I regard your proposed amendment to "The New Zealand national rugby union team is known as the All Blacks", as an indication that you are trying to engage constructively. In the interests of us making progress I'm not going to change the lead until we've reviewed this properly.

So let's consider your central contention that the MOS (WP:LEAD) states "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." This appears to be the only argument you make in support of your formulation. To your credit, you have quoted the MOS correctly, but you have neglected to provide context by quoting the sentence that immediately follows: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." (I must assume that you overlooked this sentence, or I would wonder why you did not also quote it. Perhaps you will choose not to explain this decision.) The MOS thus provide for precisely the situation we face, and specifically state that the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.

Your most recently proposed amendment as an improvement. As pointed out in the discussion above, the previous formulation was heavy with redundacy and I appreciate that you have taken this on board. But now that we know we don't need to restate the descriptive but awkward page title we can improve it even further. We know from the MOS that the subject is usually to be stated as early as possible in the lead sentence. The subject here is the All Blacks, so we should make them the subject of the sentence, rather than the object. Even assuming the current descriptive article title represents consensus and will never be changed, to trail "All Blacks" at the end of the opening sentence is to bury the lead.

But there's yet another factor to be considered here. You are well aware that there is much contention about whether the New Zealand national rugby union team is called the "All Blacks" or "New Zealand" - you have argued at great length on this issue above, and presumably have read the many arguments in opposition. The opening sentence you propose implicitly suggests that the team is not named the All Blacks, by your use of the words "is known as". Your lead is thus contentious. We could edit this to read "is called", a formulation which would satisfy me (and which I note you have in the past proposed as satisfactory), but I suspect this would be just as contentious for its implicit suggestion that All Blacks is the actual name. Beginning the lead with, "The All Blacks...", avoids the necessity of providing a form of words for what is clearly a thorny issue, and thus takes this issue off the table.

"The All Blacks represent New Zealand in rugby union." It's clean, clear and uncontentious. This is therefore what I propose. As an alternative, "The All Blacks are the New Zealand national rugby union team.", is both clumsier and potentially misleading (see Black Ferns, NZ Sevens, Junior All Blacks et al), but has the virtue of again sidestepping the naming issue while putting the lead up front.

I await with interest your thoughts on this issue. Now that we can see the MOS does not require repetition of the article title, perhaps there are some other factors you think militate to this approach? If so, I'd like you to express them. 125.237.12.147 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

First, if you genuinely want a collegial discussion here, please be less patronising. Also, please indent and sign your posts, as it would make this discussion easier to follow.

Unfortunately, your post above contains a number of false assumptions and errors:

“You seem to be keen to discuss the article name.”

Not at all. The article name is settled, and previous disagreements among some editors about the name should not colour the discussion about the opening sentence.

“But now that we know we don't need to restate the descriptive but awkward page title we can improve it even further.”

We know no such thing. The article name is not ‘merely descriptive’ - it is the name of the team, including ‘national rugby union team’ for disambiguation. (From the lengthy discussions above, you will see that my preferred article name is 'New Zealand (national RU team)', but that is not the convention in use here.)

“The subject here is the All Blacks, so we should make them the subject of the sentence, rather than the object.”

The subject is New Zealand, the national rugby union team. Another name/nickname sometimes/often used for this team in some contexts is ‘the All Blacks’. Again, according to WP:LEAD, “If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.” You have given no reason why this is not possible here.

“Even assuming the current descriptive article title represents consensus and will never be changed, to trail "All Blacks" at the end of the opening sentence is to bury the lead.”

No it isn’t. ‘All Blacks’ is not the subject of this article. All Blacks is another name (or a nickname) for the subject of this article, and not even another name with an exactly identical meaning. Using a very short sentence, ending with an alternative name for the subject of the article, is burying nothing.

“The opening sentence you propose implicitly suggests that the team is not named the All Blacks, by your use of the words "is known as."”

No it doesn’t. You are reading something into ‘is known as’ that isn’t there. I don’t really care if the sentence says “is known as”, “is called”, “is often called”, “is sometimes called”, “is also called”, “is also known as”, “is nicknamed”, “is named” etc - all are accurate, and there are probably lots of others that are just as acceptable. There are probably lots of other editors who have a stronger preference than I do.

“I suspect this would be just as contentious for its implicit suggestion that All Blacks is the actual name. Beginning the lead with, "The All Blacks...", avoids the necessity of providing a form of words for what is clearly a thorny issue, and thus takes this issue off the table.”

No it doesn’t. Beginning the sentence with "The All Blacks..." would be a far bigger suggestion that it is the team’s name. To editors who maintain ‘All Blacks’ is not a name of the team (and therefore should not be the name of this article) this intro would, very obviously, be even more unacceptable.

"The All Blacks represent New Zealand in rugby union." It's clean, clear and uncontentious.”

No, it isn’t uncontentious. If you honestly think that is uncontentious, given the previous debates in this discussion, then I don’t think you are competent to contribute this article. You’re obviously an intelligent person - why you would sincerely think this is beyond me.

Nor is it clear. Any opening sentence which does not include the details New Zealand, national team, rugby union, senior, men’s, able-bodied, fifteen a side, etc is potentially open to misunderstanding. However, it is conventional (here and in the media in general) that when we say ‘national RU team’ we are talking about the senior men’s able-bodied fifteens team. Thus “national rugby union team” is a lot clearer than “represent NZ in RU”, which could refer to sevens, women, U18s, or a B team, for example.

Despite your insinuations, of course I read the whole section at WP:LEAD. Remember that it states "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." It is possible, so we should do it. Nothing in your argument refutes this. Nothing in WP:LEAD is grounds for not doing so. There is no good reason here to use an alternative name/nickname before the article name. --hippo43 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Question. If we retain the status quo, would we be consistent and rename British And Irish Lions to England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales combined national rugby union team? Moriori (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, see what response you get. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

" if you genuinely want a collegial discussion here", then treat a serious question seriously. I am 50/50 on this issue but when I see such patronising flippancy from perhaps the most ardent POV pusher here, I am inclined to think he lacks rationality, and the arguments of those opposing his views may more deserve my support. Moriori (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that this example has been raised before, rhetorically, I assumed you were being sarcastic. If not, apologies. I don't think we should rename the Lions article. --hippo43 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Question. We say the Black Ferns is New Zealand's national women's rugby union team so if we retain the status quo will we also amend the title to read New Zealand national men's rugby union team? (My emphasis).Moriori (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We should probably rename it "New Zealand senior men's first choice able-bodied fifteen a side rugby union team" just to be sure. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

" if you genuinely want a collegial discussion here", then treat a serious question seriously. I am 50/50 on this issue but when I see such patronising flippancy from perhaps the most ardent POV pusher here, I am inclined to think he lacks rationality, and the arguments of those opposing his views may more deserve my support. Moriori (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No offence intended. Given your first question, I assumed your second was sarcastic. I now realise it's not, and I'm inclined to say yes, or at least not really mind either way. I think arguments should be considered on their merits, not on the person who makes them. --hippo43 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be reading a degree of tone into my comments that it unintended. I certainly have no desire to patronise you - I'm not big on emoticons, so please take the appropriate smileys as read, if it makes you feel better. As to signing my posts, of course you're right: I can be careless and for that I apologise. I feel that repeated indents make a discussion more difficult to follow and I therefore favour a regular return to flush, but if it keeps you happy I'd be delighted to work with you on this, and will therefore try to maintain indents in our conversation in future.

You claim above that the article name - "New Zealand national rugby team" - is the "name of the team". (I had to read this several times, just to make sure I understood your words). This creates some enormous difficulties for you. I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find any uses of that name. Perhaps I'm wrong - please go ahead and refer me to instances of said team name being utilised. While I was still processing this, however, I read your next parenthetical comment, in which you point out that your prefered article title would be 'New Zealand (national RU team)'. You are making an argument that the name of the New Zealand national rugby team is "New Zealand". I disagree with your position, but I certainly agree with your contention that the name of the team is not "New Zealand national rugby team". So in a cunning manoeuvre, you have with one hand held forth the idea that the team name is the name of the article, then with the other hand brutally slapped that first hand away, then punched it repeatedly until you have seen it crushed and bleeding. Come to think of it: well done! We're on the same side, you and I - we both agree that in no possible universe are the All Blacks named the "New Zealand national rugby team".

If you'd like to try to maintain your argument that the team name is "New Zealand national rugby team" then go ahead and generate those references, otherwise I think we can happily agree that the current article title is descriptive. This being the case, we agree that the title doesn't need to appear in the main text (assuming you would prefer to conform to the MOS, of course, which states this specifically). So now we need look to questions of content and style.

Next, we can step forward together. You say above that you are happy for the lead sentence to read "is named". I feel this is likely to be contentious, but as I'm dealing with someone coming from a different position to myself, I'm red-in-the-face delighted to fly this particular zeppelin until someone shoots it down. I'll make your change and we'll see if it sticks. (I hope it does - then you and I can high five and hug it out.)

While we're waiting to see whether our new formulation stands up in the wind, we can review your next substantive point, which is a good one. You state that "it is conventional (here and in the media in general) that when we say ‘national RU team’ we are talking about the senior men’s able-bodied fifteens team". Conventions change over time, of course, and given the explosive growth of both women's rugby and murderball I do wonder if this is one that should be reviewed. My first thought was, "the New Zealand senior men's able bodied rugby team" (whether before or after "All Blacks"), while yours was "New Zealand senior men's first choice able-bodied fifteen a side rugby union team.". I think mine is better than yours, but mine is still clumsy and we're not a million miles away from each other. Surely there is a more elegant option available: let's read your thoughts.

As a quick style note, I recommend that you not copy/paste entire sentences. We're both adults here, and our previous exchanges are set out above. Please address the substance of our discussion - as a reader, it's awfully messy having to trawl the repitition of previous discussion to get to your response, when I'm certainly you could have formulated it without having to copy/paste my words along the way. (Is this patronising? I'm trying not to be, so again please read here the emoticions that will allow you to sleep at night.)

Finally, I must observe that as I speculated, you chose not to explain your previous decision to quote the first sentence of MOS (WP:LEAD), but not the second. Well done. Discretion is the better part of valour, after all. Jvt2111 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your ability to misread, misunderstand or misrepresent my words is a concern. You wrote that I claimed ‘"New Zealand national rugby team" - is the "name of the team"’. If you actually read it several times, you would have seen that I actually said “the article name is not ‘merely descriptive’ - it is the name of the team, including ‘national rugby union team’ for disambiguation.” I won’t bother supplying any more references referring to the team as ‘New Zealand’ - there are plenty listed in earlier discussions etc.

I don’t think I have ever claimed that the team name is "New Zealand national rugby team" - the team name is ‘New Zealand’, so the article title is not, as WP:LEAD says, “merely descriptive”, any more than The Gambler (song) is “merely descriptive.”

I did explain, maybe not as clearly as you’d like, why I quoted only part of the text at WP:LEAD. I did not quote the sentence you are so fond of, because the article title is not merely descriptive. I try not to quote irrelevant passages in these discussions. For the same reason, I did not quote from the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, the International Rules of Speed Skating etc

If I’m quoting someone’s points in order to address them one at a time, and so that others know what I’m on about, I’ll use whatever style I think best. Thanks for the advice.

For me, the wording ‘New Zealand national rugby union team’ is probably best - all the other qualifiers are assumed, both in these articles and in general use. If you want to change the convention on Wikipedia, I think WP:WikiProject_Rugby_union would be a good place to start.

To avoid conflict over ‘is named’ / ‘is nicknamed’, I think ‘is called’ would be better.

Your presumptuous rhetorical style is obnoxious and does you no favours. It is not conducive to collaboration. If you don’t understand what I mean (and I think you do) I suggest you ask someone in real life for advice. --hippo43 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working really hard here to try to interpret you to your advantage, but it's getting really difficult for me to make you look sensible. (I can hardly imagine the trouble you're having.) I see your words were: "The article name is not ‘merely descriptive’ - it is the name of the team, including ‘national rugby union team’ for disambiguation." Res ipsa loquitur, of course, particularly given your latter highlighting of the fact that you suggested "New Zealand (national RU team)", presumably the latter for disambiguation, but were then overruled by "New Zealand national rugby union team". Thus your claim that the current article title includes an aspect of disambiguation, despite the deliberate deletion of your parenthises, is a jokingly hard sell. At this point it becomes really difficult to hold back the belly laughs. I'm ashamed to admit that my gigantic belly has been wobbling for the last quarter hour. (To protect your feelings let me point out that I regard my belly as wobbling with you, rather than at you.)

I'm happy to devote as much time as you want to this issue, but I think we can all see that you're riding a donkey, at best, and perhaps a duck. By all means provide those references, or perhaps you might try to retain a hint of dignity on this issue and retire in silence.

I'm now painfully conscious of your sensitivity to patronage, so let me be very careful. Your statement that 'the article title is not, as WP:LEAD says, “merely descriptive”, any more than The Gambler (song) is “merely descriptive"', does not constitute an arugment. That is what we functioning humans call an 'assertion'. An 'argument' requires support. For example, you might say that where "The Gambler" is the name of Kenny's great song, similarly "New Zealand national rugby team" is the name of New Zealand's great team because... because... I'm sorry - I'm trying my best to help you out here, but I'm struggling to see what argument you could propose. I feel I've failed you here, when I should have helped - please come back and do your best. Perhaps you might try to outline your thoughts and then I can fill in then gaps coherently. Whatever method you would prefer, I'm happy to oblige. I'm enjoying our conversation.

I was fascinated by your response to the live issue of your quoting the MOS out of context. "I did not quote the sentence you are so fond of, because the article title is not merely descriptive. I try not to quote irrelevant passages in these discussions. For the same reason, I did not quote from the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, the International Rules of Speed Skating etc". Please forgive me if the following words read awkwardly: this is the fifth or sixth time I have drafted them in an attempt not to be patronising. When constructing an argument based upon an appeal to authority (a perfectly valid approach, by the way), the proposer is obliged to quote contextually. Omitting "irrelevant passages" based on a judgement call not only undermines one's argument, it makes a person looks just a little bit incompetent. Again, I'm sorry if you feel this is patronising: I'm trying awfully hard to help you here, but you're making it difficult.

I accept wholeheartedly that it is your preference to quote "someone’s points in order to address them one at a time, and so that others know what I’m on about". I take it that from this point forth we will extend each other the same courtesy, and I may expect no similar trivial critiques from you. Much as you may read a "presumptuous rhetorical style" into my words, please go to your happy place upon reading them, and focus on the substance rather than any unresolved issues lurking in your past.

I await your thoughts with interest.Jvt2111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

600+ words, and no substance. If you want to discuss the article, rather than trying to show everyone what a very, very clever man you are, please do so. --hippo43 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on, you can do better than that! Qui tacet consentire videtur, not that I'm aiming to get all classical and all. Flex your gigantic buttocks, hippo, and make an argument, if you have one. Jvt2111 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to discuss improving the article. Not interested in arguing about arguing, or giving you something else to misunderstand at great length. --hippo43 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course our objective is to improve the article: to do this we must converse. While I have immense sympathy for the agonising pain you must feel upon being misunderstood, that sympathy is somewhat eroded when your response is to take your ball and run away. If you have a case, then by all means make it. Elsewise I am left to assume you have no response to the points set out above. Jvt2111 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the points you've made about the lead. If you have something new to say about the article, I'll probably answer it. --hippo43 (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You've provided no rebuttal to my observation that the article title is descriptive and that the MOS tells us we therefore need not include it in the lead. Your contention that the MOS requires repetition of the article title was the foundation upon which you chose to rest your argument, so this is rather important, but I'm not surprised at your failure here. I don't think there is a rebuttal available to you, and you may still be a little sore that your policy of selective quotation from the MOS was highlighted. (I note in passing that you have again gone silent on this matter. Apologising might make you feel better.)

I'd really like to discuss this further with you, but if you have really chosen to withdraw from the argument then I must assume you accept my position and amend the lead accordingly.Jvt2111 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your contention that silence implies consent is a useful rhetorical stance for someone who is unable to persuade, but is not one that is generally reflected in real life. Perhaps silence shows an unwillingness to continue being pestered, a reaction to an unwelcome intrusion into one's personal space, or that someone doesn't have as much time on their hands to engage in pointless repetition of an argument. From now on, assume that I agree with you only if I explicitly state as much.

Again, the article title is not "merely descriptive". The team's name is 'New Zealand', reflected in the choice of article title after lengthy discussions. The convention here is to use the wording 'national rugby union team' in article titles, to prevent confusion with the New Zealand cricket team, the New Zealand Davis cup team, or New Zealand the country etc - all of which are also named 'New Zealand'. Therefore, again, the page name is not "merely descriptive".

And again, there is no great mystery for me to explain about my quotation. I quoted the part of the guideline that clearly applies to this issue. As the title is not "merely descriptive", the subsequent sentence does not apply here. For the same reason I did not quote the parts about lists or fictional characters, otherwise it would have been a very long quote. The whole of that guideline is perfectly visible to anyone who wants to read it, irrespective of what I quoted here. However, by choosing to say "descriptive" rather than "merely descriptive", which is what the guideline actually says, you are being dishonestly or incompetently selective. --hippo43 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! That silence implies consent is a fairly common principle in argument, but I forgive your unfamiliarity with it. Let's continue our discussion so that you can tell me what you think and I need not make assumptions.

Your case for the article title not being "merely descriptive" is a bit messy. I think you are trying to argue that the title "New Zealand national rugby team" is not descriptive in that New Zealand is the team name, while the words "national rugby team" are applied to avoid confusion only. Unfortunately I can only see the beginning of your argument, where you assert this - I don't see you providing any support for your assertion.

Let me demonstrate. When I argue that "New Zealand national rugby team" is merely descriptive, I can first point to the adjectival application of the first four words of the phrase, as modifiers for the word "team" (the absence of any form of punctuation is the decider in this context). I can then compare it to the MOS example of a "merely descriptive" title, "Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers", observing that in both cases the subject terms (in the former instance, "team", in the latter, "characteristics") are modified for descriptive clarification, and the phrases are therefore functionally identical in grammatical terms. Next, I can compare it with your own preferred title as set out above, "New Zealand (national rugby team)" observing that this would indeed be a clear disambiguation that would support your point, but noting that because this title was rejected it stands in stark contrast to the actual wording, making even clearer the descriptive nature of the status quo.

That's one way of constructing an argument - there are lots more. Making an assertion and then failing to back it up is not one of those ways. I'm still waiting to read your argument that the title is descriptive only, but suspect I will grow old before I see it.

As to your selective quotation from the MOS, you seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that when one appeals to authority one may quote to suit one's own position. I'm going to assume that you're unfamiliar with the principles of argument (otherwise I must assume malice on your part), so let me repeat the point I have made previously that seems to have escaped you: when appealing to authority, the advocate is obliged to quote fully and in context. Omission based on judgement (a judgement like "the subsequent sentence does not apply here") at best undermines the argument. Let's leave the worst case scenario aside and just assume you didn't know what you were doing. An apology under this head might make you feel better.

I'm a bit surprised to see you describe me as being "dishonestly or incompetently selective" when I called the guideline "descriptive", rather than "merely descriptive", which is what you contend the MOS requires. Entertainingly, you make this contention immediately after stating that "[t]he whole of that guideline is perfectly visible to anyone who wants to read it" - if one does read the MOS one sees the following sentence: "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." So we can agree that you're wrong, but a valuable lesson can still be taken from this situation. The lesson is that, as I've noted repeatedly, when relying on an external source it should be quoted fully and contextually. I apologise for not doing so, and thus leading you to toss out the words "dishonestly or imcompetently selective" without reading the MOS to see where you had gone off track.

(That's amazing - I feel great for having apologised, and my sin was the omission of a source that supports my argument. Imagaine how great you would feel if you were to apologise for omitting a source that undermines your argument!)

I'm pleased you're back and await your response with interest.Jvt2111 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem a strange animal. If you really want to lecture others at length about what you consider the ‘principles of argument’ or your view of English grammar, maybe teach a class somewhere? If you want to discuss improvements to the article, please change your patronising approach - you are coming across as a rather incivil beast.

You also seem to have ongoing trouble with the idea of consent, at least as it works in the real world. Don’t presume that I agree with you unless I say as much. --hippo43 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of continued co-operation, allow me to apoplogise for making you feel patronised. It's really not my intent. I hope you can work past these feelings and focus on the arguments at hand. If it makes you feel better, please understand that when I find your tone mean-spirited or whiny, I just ignore it. It's probably not your intention for it to be so and it's irrelevant to the argument at hand.

In the meantime, I see that either you're incapable of constructing a substantive response, or your hurt feeling are preventing you for doing so. I'll specifically not assume, for the moment, that your silence indicates that you agree with me. I'll assume that you're regathering yourself emotionally and working to marshal your arguments. The longer those (doubtless excellent) arguments go unexpressed, however, the more difficult it is to believe they exist.Jvt2111 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that you've come up with a single good reason to change the lead, or not to open with the article title. As is obvious to anyone not using this discussion to show off how just very clever they think they are, the article name was changed because New Zealand is the name of the team, therefore it isn't a 'merely descriptive' title. You've argued very repetitively that we don't need to follow the MOS, but still offered no good reason why we should choose not to. --hippo43 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jvt2111, you have again changed the lead without reaching consensus on here - with the misleading edit summary indicating amended per this talk page. I see nothing here to back that up. Get consensus first and then change it. noq (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have argued repeatedly that we should follow the MOS, which specifically states that the article title need not be included in the lead when it is descriptive. I have also set out precisely why it is descriptive, both in defininitive terms and in comparative terms (pro and contra). This may not be comprehensive but it is pretty close to being so, and there has been a resounding silence in response.

So should one interpret silence as being other than consensus?

Please do continue to engage, otherwise one is left talking to a void, and then what may one assume but the obvious?Jvt2111 (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Although you've repeatedly said you don't think the MOS requires the article title to start the first sentence (a position that no one here has agreed with, and I have explicitly disagreed with) you have made no argument as to why we should use anything other than the title, far less a name/nickname that has already been rejected as the name of this article.

As you said, the article title and lead are related issues, and you regard the title issue as settled (at least for now). Therefore, given that 'All Blacks' was rejected in those discussions, at least partly because 'New Zealand' is the name of the team, why might 'All Blacks' be a better way to start the article? --hippo43 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jvt, I see you have now started edit warring to get your preferred version into the article. Quite why you would think there was consensus for your version when no editors have agreed with you, I have explicitly disagreed with you, and your wording was already rejected as the article title is beyond me. Please stop this nonsense. --hippo43 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hippo, it's a joy to have you back. I certainly have not "said that [I] don't think" the MOS requires the article title to start the first sentence. Instead, I have quoted the MOS words that state this. (Among others, "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." You persist in refusing to respond to this. I wonder why.)

You genuinely seem to think I have not provided an argument for "All Blacks" to be a better way to start the article. I think I have, as set out above, but let's leave this aside for now. Before we can discuss it properly, we need to agree that, as the MOS states, "...if the article title is merely descriptive... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." (Please forgive my paraphrasing for the purposes of brevity. I think that at this stage we are both very familiar with the words of the MOS.) I'd be happy to proceed from that point, but frankly I doubt that you're capable of admitting when you're wrong. In this very discussion, you've been caught selectively quoting to your advantage and have steadfastly refused even to apologise.

As to why I would think there was consensus for my version, I think we're all pretty clear on that: when you have no response even to the words of the MOS on which you initially claimed to rely, your position is untenable. Your remarkable failure to provide anything further in support of said position is doubly damning.

So here's your chance. You understand that the MOS specifically states that descriptive titles need not appear verbatim. You've seen by definition and comparison that the current title is descriptive. So do you then persist in whipping this deceased donkey, or would you prefer to withdraw, apologise with good grace and re-seat your case elsewhere so we can proceed?Jvt2111 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been "caught" doing anything. I quoted the part of the MOS directly relevant to this issue.

Again, I don't agree with your view that the article title is merely descriptive. Clearly you think it is, but I disagree, and no other editors have agreed with you, so there is no consensus here. That you think you have made a stronger argument is not consensus. If you were to go through life assuming people agree with you, either because they do not reply or because you believe you have made a stronger argument, I'm sure you'd find yourself in all kinds of unfortunate situations.

Once again, why would 'All Blacks', a rejected name for this article, be better than the actual name of the article as a way to start the first sentence? --hippo43 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been caught. This has been documented to death above, but once again for the record, we know that you quoted the first part fo the MOS, which you thought suited you, while excluding the second, which (being enormously charitable), you decided was not relevant to the article. Again, interpreting matters to your greatest possible advantage, you have been caught in the act of quoting words that suit you, while excluding those that (as you admit above) you judge are irrelevant.

I'm surprised by how much more entertaining this gets by the day. I've previously assumed you're a capable adult, but adults are for the most part pretty good at admitting when they've been caught out. You're dead to rights: lined up against the wall, wrapped in duct tape and with your arse showing for the world to examine. A quick mea culpa would fix everything - you'd be off the hook and free to construct a better case, yet you continue to dig yourself further into a hole. It is - frankly - embarrassing, but I just can't resist continuing to jab you about it. If you're serious about this point then do yourself some justice, apologise, and save any dignity you have left. If you want to continue acting as a lightweight then continue: we're all loving it.

Once you're stuggled from this muddy morass of your own making, I hope you will present your case that the article title is not merely descriptive. Based on your words above, apparently we both agree that I have put my case. Aside from you saying that you "disagree", I see no evidence of any argument against from you.

I'm still waiting. Jvt2111 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've explained above why the article title is not merely descriptive, and I won't be apologising for anything any time soon. As the article title is not merely descriptive, I've quoted the relevant section of the MOS. If you think other parts relate to this case, so be it; I disagree. I don't see a whole lot of support for your position right now, nor do I see an explanation of why a rejected name for the article might be a better start to its opening sentence. --hippo43 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm overjoyed to see you once more set out precisely what you have been caught doing, then emphasise that you have no intention of apologising for it. I'm not really surprised: it's become clearer by the day that apologising for your dodgy behaviour is something that you'd prefer not to do, as illustrated so clearly by your failure to make gentle amends for suggsting I was "dishonestly or incompetently selective", when I have quoted precisely those words in the MOS that support my paraphrasing. Don't sweat it: we're all getting a feel for what sort of character you have, and we're making allowances for it.

Of course, you have not "explained why the article title is merely descriptive". You have asserted this; that is all. Let's review the instances where you might have attempted an argument:

On 29 January you said "The article name is not ‘merely descriptive’ - it is the name of the team, including ‘national rugby union team’ for disambiguation.". Here, you made a hearty assertion and I read it, understood that your argument was about to follow, then read on with anticipation. Unfortunately all the following parenthetical sentence said was that, "(From the lengthy discussions above, you will see that my preferred article name is 'New Zealand (national RU team)', but that is not the convention in use here.)" Not only does this not constitute an argument, it provides an excellent comparison with the actual article title, highlighting the difference between the agreed title and one that might actually support your position. That was an unfortunate choice on your part so I guess I can understand why you didn't try to explain it further.

After I nagged you a little, later that same day you returned to say, "I don’t think I have ever claimed that the team name is "New Zealand national rugby team" - the team name is ‘New Zealand’, so the article title is not, as WP:LEAD says, “merely descriptive”, any more than The Gambler (song) is “merely descriptive.”" Here, you followed the repetition of your assertion by attempting to compare the current article title to another; unfortunately you ended up comparing it with another. (In the interests of not hurting your feelings I'll assume you know the difference between comparing to and comparing with.) I wonder if you were trying to say that just as "The Gambler (song)" constitutes the name of the work plus a parenthetical disambiguation, so "New Zealand national rugby union team" constitutes the name of the team plus a disambiguation. (It's difficult to know for sure, because you failed to say.) If this was the case then you made an awful choice of comparison: just as the article title for The Gambler contains parenthetical disambiguation and your stated preferred title for this article contains parenthetical disambiguation, so the actual title for this article does not. (I'm doing my best to find your argument here, but it's proving awfully difficult.)

The next day you came back to say, "The team's name is 'New Zealand', reflected in the choice of article title after lengthy discussions. The convention here is to use the wording 'national rugby union team' in article titles, to prevent confusion with the New Zealand cricket team, the New Zealand Davis cup team, or New Zealand the country etc - all of which are also named 'New Zealand'. Therefore, again, the page name is not "merely descriptive"." Here, you have attempted and achieved a comparison to other articles, like "New Zealand national cricket team". I assume you then planned to demonstrate that such article titles were other than descriptive. Unfortunately you forgot to do so (perhaps because they too are so clearly descriptive), so we were left with a comparison to other article titles that, again, supports the contention that this one is merely descriptive.

Please forgive me if I've missed your argument. I've tried my best to dig it up but all I've managed to find are the words I've noted. I hope you'll come back to explain where I've gone wrong (and perhaps to insist once again that you'll die screaming before apologising for any misdeeds). While you're at it, perhaps you might attempt to actually defend your position, or withdraw to a more sensible one. Jvt2111 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What a lot of words. But still no explanation from you of why a rejected article title might make a better start to the article. And who are the 'we' you referred to? You and all the editors who have agreed with you? --hippo43 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I use "we" to refer to anyone who might read this text. And I'd be delighted to move to the next issue - whether a rejected article title might make a better start to the article. I take it this is your tacit way of admitting we have now settled that the article title is descriptive. I think this is a sensible move, but was frankly doubtful you were capable of it. Not to put you on the spot, but before I start feeling too impressed I'd like to be sure we're on the same page: can you confirm this is so? Jvt2111 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the article title is not merely descriptive. 'New Zealand' in this case is not an adjective, but the name of the team, just as it is in France national rugby union team (not French national rugby union team), England national rugby union team etc.

If I agree with you on something, I'll let you know. Best not to assume tacit agreement, in my experience. --hippo43 (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How terribly conflicting! I'm simultaneously overcome by disappointment at your failure and by an ignoble satisfaction at you conforming to my expectations. Your pathetic attempts at argument have been demonstrated to be insubstantial; your currish selective quotations and baseless insults have been exposed to the world, yet still you lack the intestinal fortitude either to apologise or to retreat with dignity to a more defensible position. It's laughable, and to my shame I have laughed heartily. I feel that not only do I owe you an apology for this, I also owe it to myself and to anyone else who might read this.

I'm sorry - I'm very, very sorry - for chortling so manaically at poor Hippo's intransigence, cowardice and limited thinking.

Now that I feel cleansed, let us continue. I take it from your most recent post that you have decided again to attempt to defend the proposition that the current article title is not descriptive. To do so you appear to be abandoning entirely your previous attempts at argument. (You don't have the guts to concede this, of course, but by now this behaviour is typical for you. Please tell me if you disagree.)

So let us examine your most recent comparison. You propose comparing "New Zealand National rugby team" to "England national rugby team" and "France national rugby team", presumably contending that in each case, because the modifier in question is a noun and not an adjective, it is used only nominally. (You don't say this, of course - as always, working out what you are trying to say is requires a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning, like filling in a crossword devised by a stoat.)

Predictably, such a contention just provides another flag as to your stunningly mediocre intellect, education or both. Adjectives are adjectives and nouns are nouns, of course, but the twain certainly do meet on a frequent basis: nouns are constantly used adjectivally, which is precisely what you're illustrating with your examples. You've previously demonstrated that you struggle to read through other sources, so I'll save you the trouble of clicking through by quoting from the Wikpedia Adjective entry:

"In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". In plain English, the modifier often indicates origin ("Virginia reel"), purpose ("work clothes"), or semantic patient ("man eater"). However, it can generally indicate almost any semantic relationship."

Of course, Wikipedia is not the greatest source (from time to time a moron will come along and try to maintain an untenable position). Nonetheless I consider this is a pretty good summary. Do you think I need to provide further sources, or would you like to exhibit some grace and withdraw from this position to one that has more substance? (I'm betting "no", and had my theoretical wagers on your behaviour to date been real then I would be much richer than I already am.) Jvt2111 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've now written about 8,000 words on this. You have failed to find consensus for your preference, and have managed to prove what, exactly? That Wikipedia is an ideal habitat for a smug, unlikeable windbag with unconventional views on consent and personal space? I imagine you're a delight at parties. --hippo43 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Normally I do my best to ignore tone, but that reads as if you are feeling very bitter. Please don't: we're just dancing together, working for the improvement of the page.

I think a couple of things have been proven, at this stage. The first is that your contention that the article title is other than descriptive is just wrong. I've explained in detail how you're wrong, relying on little more than the specific words of the very MOS you thought supported you, a rudimentary familiarity with grammar, and the plethora of article titles at Wikipedia; while you've manged to provide not a teaspoon of support for your initial position, have been caught in naughtiness more than once, and have now reverted to silence on the point.

The second thing that has been proven is that you lack smarts. (I can't take credit here: you did all the work.) There are all sorts of directions in which we might take the discussion of the article lead. Some of them may rely to some extent on subjective, rather than objective, analysis, where you might have performed better. The intelligent thing to have done would have been to give up on your initial, demonstrably groundless, argument, and move on to those other areas. You, though, seem incapable of admitting that you're wrong.

This is a pretty common flaw in people and is frequently accompanied by an unwillingness ever to apologise. I had hoped for better from you,. I suppose your previous bannings for edit-warring should have provided me with a clue as to how you were likely to behave. Jvt2111 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

comment

From the Simplified ruleset: Ignore all rules: Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both.

We all know that the AllBlacks are called the AllBlacks, and known as such in the rugby world, and chances are that if a non rugby person knows anything about rugby, they will know the name 'AllBlacks' That's the Spirit of the rule - to call this page the AllBlacks. The letter of the rule says to call them the naff term that doesn't exist "The New Zealand Rugby team"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzcamel (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) According to the rugby programs and official documentation from the IRB, the team is called New Zealand, not the All Blacks. --Bob (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cory Jane

The following was reinstated today, after being deleted without explanation:

|- class="vcard agent" | style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Cory Jane | style="vertical-align:top;" |Wing | style="vertical-align:top;" | (1983-02-08) 8 February 1983 | style="vertical-align:top;" |21 | style="vertical-align:top;" | Wellington
wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cory Jane is still on tour, he has not been replaced, he may return as early as next weekend. i reverted it earlier from seemingly the same person...--Stemoc (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

World Cup

No mention of NZ's record in the world cup contained in the lead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.165.99 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Henrys record

It states 83/98 = 85.7% winning %, but my calculator says 84.6938%, what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.213.191 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been updated from the reference which says 84.7. XLerate (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

1956 series

I believe the claim that the 1956 series against South Africa was the latter's first ever loss in a rugby test series is incorrect. Both Wikipedia's article on the Springboks and ESPN Scrum's match archive reveal that South Africa lost two international series to the British Isles (now known as the British and Irish Lions) in the 1890s. It would be correct to describe the 1956 series as South Africa's first away series loss, however. Wcp07 (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhodesia

I've seen an editor add several times that Rhodesia is one of the few nations to have beaten the All Blacks, and been reverted for lack of sources. The edits look to me to be in good faith.

The article already says, in the third paragraph of "Development of a legacy":

Also on the 1949 tour, captain Fred Allen led a partial contingent of All Blacks to Rhodesia for two exhibition matches. The Rhodesia side beat the All Blacks 10-8 in Bulawayo and then drew 3-3 in the follow up match in Salisbury. (Rhodesia's impressive final tally versus the All Blacks by the last game between the sides in 1970 was won 1 drew 1 and lost 3).

This is also unsourced. It may be that this is incorrrect, or there is an argument that Rhodesia was not considered a nation at the time, or the team was not a full AB side, or the match was not a test match, or for some other reason that this does not qualify as a nation beating the All Blacks, but at the moment it seems there is a discrepancy between the lead claim that "only five test rugby nations have ever beaten New Zealand" and this section.

The conflict with this editor might be simply resolved by explaining why the match against Rhodesia in 1949 doesn't qualify, and possibly by amending the lead to include something along the lines of "although defeats outside of formal test matches have occurred."-gadfium 20:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

If you look at your list of games on the AllBlack website it certainly lists 354th game v Rhodesia in 1949 and 355th game again v Rhodesia. The AllBlacks toured Rhodesia on several occasions and these games are certainly listed as being official games. Fred Allen acknowledged those games as being very tough ones. The great Colin Meades broken the sternum of Piet de Kerk playing a game against Rhoseia. Are you telling me that two mighty captains of the All Blacks would lead this mighty country against Rhodesia and not acknowledge it? Come on, give it a break. We all acknowledge that the All Blacks are the most succesful team in the world but you could at least acknowledge that it was not always quite as you would like to think it is. I will list the other games for you on here off your own website. If they were not official games then pray tell why do they have a number? I will happily accept rewording parts of it if you like but have the good grace to acknowldge a minnow when it does something pretty spectacular. I was at the 2002 game v England and various NZ supporters tried to suggest that the English victory should not count because it was a "second XV"!! If you send a second XV then make sure it is a good one. FYI the team who played in the 1949 game v Rhodesia were:

15 JW Goddard, 14 EG Boggs 13 GW Delamore 12 Fred Allen (Captain) 11 P Henderson 10 JC Kearney 9 WJM Conrad 8 NH Thornton 7 PJB Crowley 6 LA Grant 5 C Willocks 4 MJ McHugh 3 RA Dalton 2 NL Wilson and I don't have the name for no 1 although in the next game it was KL Skinner. In the second game RWH Scott played at 15, WA Meates at 14, RR Elvidge at 13, NW Black at 10, DL Cristian at 8, P Johnstone at 6, HF Frazer at 5, JG Simpson at 3 and KL Skinner at 1.

Again I ask you if the games were unofficial why are they listed as games number 354 and 355. This comes from the website:

http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/teamsheet.asp?MT_ID=1354

354th All Black Game

New Zealand vs Rhodesia at Hartsfield

Bulawayo, Rhodesia

Wednesday, 27 July 1949

Fulltime - New Zealand 8, Rhodesia 10

Halftime - New Zealand 0, Rhodesia 5

Attendance - 10000

Conditions - Weather fine, ground good

http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/teamsheet.asp?MT_ID=1355

355th All Black Game

New Zealand vs Rhodesia at Old Hararian's Ground

Salisbury, Rhodesia

Saturday, 30 July 1949

Fulltime - New Zealand 3, Rhodesia 3

Halftime - New Zealand 0, Rhodesia 3

Attendance - 12000

Conditions - Weather fine, ground firm

I look forward to your fine response, with historical back up. Please remember I am not playing down the role or the position of the ALLBlacks in rugby, just giving finer details of history.

Kind regards

Fairbridge

To continue:

First game v Rhodesia was 1928. This was the biggest score by the AllBlacks. The Lions Tour of

231st All Black Game

New Zealand vs Rhodesia at Bulawayo Athletic Club

Bulawayo, Rhodesia

Saturday, 14 July 1928

Fulltime - New Zealand 44, Rhodesia 8

Halftime - New Zealand 31, Rhodesia 0

Attendance - 3500

Conditions - Weather fine, ground good

The 4th game v Rhodesia was 465th All Black Game

New Zealand vs Rhodesia at Glamis Park

Salisbury, Rhodesia

Saturday, 2 July 1960

Fulltime - New Zealand 29, Rhodesia 14

Halftime - New Zealand 6, Rhodesia 6

Attendance - 23000

Conditions - Weather hot and sunny, ground firm

The last game was the 594th All Black Game in 1970

New Zealand vs Rhodesia at Rhodesian Police Ground

Salisbury, Rhodesia

Tuesday, 21 July 1970

Fulltime - New Zealand 27, Rhodesia 14

Halftime - New Zealand 13, Rhodesia 6

Attendance - 18000

Conditions - Weather fine, ground firm

Sadly there was no game during the 1976 tour of SA but one of touring AB players in 1976 Alan Sutherland (No 8) stayed behind in Rhodesia and in 1977 and played for them as captain in the Currie Cup series.

Rhodesia was country in it own right as Zimbabwe is today, or Portugal for that matter. Why is it then that you list Portugal as one of the ABs victims on the tally but not a country which actually proved to be better adversaries than Canada, Fiji, Japan, Pacific Islanders, Portugal, Romania,Samoa, Tonga and lastly a World WV which is not even a country. None of them ever beat the AB and I will tell you now that the AB would never have played their 1st XV against Portugal!! How can the World WV really be an official test. Is it just because the AB beat them that these games are on the tally board?

Please tell the full story and be proud of it. I admit the ABs are the most successful team in history and now. Will you admit the Rhodesian games as part of that process?

Again, kind regards

Fairbridge.

---

Mate, simple fact is that caps were not awarded for games vs Rhodesia. Spin it every which way you want but if no caps were awarded then no test match. All the countries you mention caps were awarded.

Also, Rhodesia only became an independent state in 1965 well after the games you mention were played, so that shoots down your comparison with Portugal, who the All Blacks played at a World Cup where caps were awarded and Portugal was an independent state.

End of story, remove those games.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.47.145 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sir, you have proved yourself to completely ignorant of the facts once more. Southern Rhodesia was self governing since 1923. The Rhodesian side of 1949 was Northern (now Zimbabwe) and Southern (now Zimbabwe) Rhodesia combined. From 1953 - 63 they were as one as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

You happily mentioned the fact that "only loss on this tour was to Newport RFC, who won 3–0 at Rodney Parade, Newport on 30 October 1963". If I hadn't pointed out the fact the mighty ABs actually lost to Rhodesia in 1949 you would happily left it out, in fact you probably never even knew about it at all. Instead of being gracious about the fact that it actually adds more detail to your private written shrine and gives it more completeness and correctness you get all agressive about it. Have it your way but the bubble has been burst. Other people have actually gotten hold of me to compliment the research I have done and I thought you would have been happy with that. I have read your contributions and gained a lot of knowledge which I thank your for. Pity you could not have done the same. Perhaps we will bump into each other in Christchurch one day.

Kind regards

Fairbridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairbridge1 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia is a good example of games played, hard games played, but not capped. As a long tragic of the AB's there are many worthy such games and controversies. How about the WW2 Test, NZ Vs SA. ABs won. Not in the count. I think Rhodesia would have been a tough tour extra, imagine a few Pococks in their team. Sadly its not a capped game. But it was part of the AB tour of SA. These tours were hard, dont start me on the SA refs i.e. on the 76 AB tour or the exclusion of Maoris to SA early on. For a lot of non rugby reasons the AB's were disadvantaged in SA. But the AB vs SA record for and against IMHO is now a correct reflection of matters. With international refs, in pure rugby terms the ABs prevailed over SA, historically. Rhodesia like these unpleasant reminders above is best left to rest. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Current squad

Can editors please use New Zealand English in the article? Player positions in the current squad were changed from half-back and first five to scrum-half and fly-half — both terms which are rarely used in New Zealand. I've changed this back. As well, all the provinces from the player list was removed; this is despite the players province being named in the official announcement (as per the citation for this squad). As well flags were added for the team (which I think violates MOS:FLAG) which is redundant as mention is made of the players eligibility (and therefore simply decorative) and a to round it off a url was added instead of using a template:cite template. Before this is reverted back could anyone that wants to do any of this discuss/justify it here? The article went through FAC without trouble using the format I've used, so at least some sort of consensus was established. Also, as per this [1] Moody was called in as training cover, and is not officially in the squad - "Moody's been called into the squad as scrummaging training cover as four of of the five props have hamstring niggles." This might change, but at the moment he is not in the squad. - Shudde ^talk 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A training squad was added (again), and again didn't bother with New Zealand English, and included Super Rugby rather than provinces. I reverted, and added a blurb about the two-day training session. The official squad will be announced on Sunday, and when it is can the update please stick with NZ English and the conventions used in the official announcement? We're not a WP:NOTNEWS site, so no need for every little training squad to be added, especially with the official squad announcement less than a week away. - Shudde ^talk 11:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This page has been attacked (by a troll)

The pages summary at the top right of this article, shows the wrong union emblem, as well as multiple erroneous errors referring to "Scott Gibson". Could this page administrator please make the appropriate corrections.

Thanks, Mysingasong (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Winning percentages

Just wanted to clarify how Winning percentages are calculated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_percentage defines it as "... wins divided by wins plus losses (i.e. the total number of matches). A draw counts as a ½ loss and a ½ win." It appears that the rugby forum is not following this methodology. Should we be? Franmiguel (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)