Wikipedia

Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team/Archive 7

< Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Desertarun in topic Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago47 comments15 people in discussion
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. An interesting discussion, and the supporters have a more than reasonable argument, but WP:UCN is not the be-all and end-all and in this case the consensus is that consistency, one of out naming criterion, is of more importance. Whether the proposed title meets several of the other criteria has been debated, but I don't see that either 'side' has a more correct interpretation, merely subjective opinions. In cases where both interpretations of policy can arguably be called correct, the numbers on each side of the argument carries a lot more weight than usual and the opposers have a clear numerical majority. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


New Zealand national rugby union team → All Blacks – CRITERIA via COMMONNAME and NVoE. I think that consistency with other articles counts for less than the other criteria. PBS (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – "All Blacks" is just a nickname that may refer to other topics. "New Zealand national rugby union team" is completely unambiguous and maintains consistency, not just within rugby union articles but also from sport to sport. Can you imagine if the Brazil national football team article was moved to Seleção? That's not to say nicknames have no place on Wikipedia, but in this case, it works better as a redirect. – PeeJay 22:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not a nickname, and can't be confused with other topics -- it's a trademarked name (in fact other teams and organisations that call themselves All Blacks can and have been taken to court). The Brazil name is a poor comparison, because they're most commonly known as Brazil (in English at least). Consistency is also a poor argument (it's an implicit admission that the team is known more commonly as All Blacks, otherwise the argument wouldn't be needed), and can't override WP:COMMONNAME (as the nominator has said). --- Shudde talk 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @PeeJay2K3: I assume you are not questioning the fact that usage in reliable sources favours the name "All Blacks" and not "New Zealand national rugby union team" and so the common name is "All Blacks". COMMONNAME does not distinguish between nicknames and official names. For example the New Model Army was never the official name of the organisation, and Big Ben is not the official name of the subjects of the article. Your slippery slop argument and the example of Seleção is a non sequitur because it is not the COMMONNAME. One has to look at the usage in reliable sources for each team in turn to see which name is most appropriate (meets the policy CRITERIA), but I can not think of another national Rugby Union team name where the sources would support a move from the descriptive names currently used as article titles. I think that it could be argued that some other NZ teams may meet the criteria (but personally I doubt it), but that is a question for the talk pages of those team's talk pages and the evidence of a survey of reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Another thing to remember is that other representative teams that have nicknames (and I don't think that's an accurate description but we'll go with it) encounter a different problem. For example Springboks, Wallabies, Proteas, Kiwis, Kangaroos, Waratahs – these are all named after animals or flowers that would themselves be the primary topic, so those names can't be used. All Blacks doesn't have that to worry about. -- Shudde talk 07:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- It's not just a nickname, in fact the name is trademarked. COMMONNAME applies here; the team is most commonly known as All Blacks so have no problem with the move. Can't be confused with another primary topic (such as with the Wallabies or Springboks). We need to look at these cases individually, rather than applying blanket standards that violate WP:COMMONNAME. -- Shudde talk 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Will this then be the first national team of any sport to use a nickname for its article title? I'm sure other team's nicknames are trademarked as well. If this move is unprecedented, I suspect it will introduce the thin end of a situation in which similar move discussions start popping up all over the place, and from there potentially dragging on indefinitely. It seems avoiding this was one of the main advantages of the status quo.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It used to be named All Blacks, and in fact it featured as Today's Featured Article with that name – when that happened no one jumped to ask why it was called such, nor was there an avalanche of questions regarding consistency in national sports team's names. I'm not sure whether many other national teams have a "nickname" (for want of a better term) as the article name, but I don't think that's the issue here. Each case should be looked at by it's own merits -- if other teams are not named after their most common name, then that shouldn't be of consequence here. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't make exceptions for representative sports teams articles -- if All Blacks is the most common name for the team (and I think it is) then the move should go ahead. -- Shudde talk 03:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Also it's interesting to note a few of the non-English language wikipedias use All Blacks as the article name(Africaans for example). -- Shudde talk 03:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's my personal opinion that the first time the New Zealand national rugby union team are mentioned in any Wikipedia article, they should be identified (and, of course, wiki-linked) as such for the significant portion of readers who won't be familiar with the connotations of the nickname 'All Blacks' (which of course can and should be used elsewhere in the article). It seems to me that this may be one of the reasons for the Wikipedia-wide convention for national teams of any sport to have their articles named [Country] national [sport] team. Therefore, if this convention is going to be changed even once, a wider reaching discussion should probably take place. This convention already flies in the face of WP:COMMONNAME anyway (how many times does the exact combination of words 'Australia national association football team' pop up on a Google search?), which makes me think that it's the community's consensus that other WP:CRITERIA such as recognizability, precision and consistency are given more weight when it comes to national sporting teams. However, consensus can of course change. But I'm not sure that the talk page of one article that follows this wide-reaching convention is the place to determine that change, even though the All Blacks are probably the best test case.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I see what you're trying to say, but this is something that needs to be considered all the time anyway. Many people don't know what rugby union is, or where New Zealand is, but we don't need to explain what these things are every time we mention them. I think the context in which a subject is used should dictate how it is used (by that I mean whether further explanation is required). So I would, in most cases, make it clear that the All Blacks are the New Zealand team, but there is a wikilink there, so it may not be required in all contexts. But keeping the current name does not actually make a huge difference here, as many editors and people are just linking to All Blacks, or piping the link anyway. The Australia commonname example you use is not really what this is about. Most times Australia's side are going to be called Australia or the Wallabies -- but clearly both these have other primary topics (the country, and the animal), so we have to disambiguate, which is what the "national rugby union team" part is about. And if we need to disambiguate, we may as well be consistent when we do it. In this case, I don't believe the disambiguation is necessary because All Blacks is still the common name. So we're not actually attempting to change the disambiguation convention, so there is nothing to worry about there. -- Shudde talk 00:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't have Puma , Springboks , Brave Blossoms I could go on Gnevin (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So your objection is that the common name for Japan is not Brave Blossoms? Or do you have a policy-based objection? Did you read any of the comments above? -- Shudde talk 12:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Only if its called "The All Blacks" as this is a wiki, not a rugby database so the term "All Blacks" can mean many things..we could give other teams their proper names in the future too but the 3 other common names, the wallabies, pumas and the Springboks, they share with animals and thy should get first 'dibs' on the name...the brave blossoms (prev: cherry blossoms) is more of a recent name, so not quite 'common', this also includes the Welsh Dragons and The Ikale Tahi... "Manu Samoa" is the common name for the Samoa team and "The Flying Fijians" is the common name for the fiji team....--Stemoc (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    The article title policy discourages the use of the definite article at the start of a title (see the policy link WP:DEFINITE). As to other things called All Blacks, I am not sure to what you are referring but the Rugby team is clearly the primary topic (see the policy link WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we should use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs for these kind of teams (yes, I know that is an essay and not policy!). Further more 'All Blacks' might be this team's nickname for rugby fans - but not everyone else, and we need to take into consideration all of our readers. The non-rugby fan who wants to read about this topic will be looking for 'New Zealand national rugby union team' and not 'All Blacks.' GiantSnowman 08:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: What is your source that "New Zealand national rugby union team" is the official name? The website of the NZRU http://www.nzru.co.nz does not support your assertion instead it states: "The All Blacks are New Zealand’s number one national rugby side and have rated amongst the best in the world for well over 100 years. Their name and distinctive all-black playing strip have become well known to rugby and non-rugby fans worldwide".[1]. It also list the other National teams including "Junior All Blacks", "Maori All Blacks" and "All Blacks Sevens" while naming some other teams with other designations eg "New Zealand Under 20".[2]. The the All Blacks website also does not support your contention because it states in the opening sentence "With a history extending back almost 130 years, New Zealand's national rugby team, the All Blacks..." note that "national rugby team" has no capitals so is a description of the name "All Blacks". -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    Who is playing here? Who is listed here? 'New Zealand', not the 'All Blacks'. GiantSnowman 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    The links you have provided are to are member unions not teams. Indeed the second link states "member unions" in the first section and then names the team All Blacks in the news section (lower down the page). Those links do not state that the official name is "New Zealand national rugby union team". I have provided links from the ZNRU that explicitly use the name All Blacks for the team. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts that? -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    What evidence have you that "non-rugby fan who wants to read about this topic will be looking for 'New Zealand national rugby union team' and not 'All Blacks.'"? See also the AT policy page it covers this issue in CRITERIA "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." anyone familiar with the subject will be looking for "All Blacks". -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - common and official name of the team. Hack (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've seen nothing that shows "All Blacks" as the official name - it's not the name they enter competitions under - that's New Zealand. noq (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Noq: I have presented evidence above from the NZRU website that "All Blacks" is the name of the team. The name of the national union is the New Zealand Rugby Union. The NZRU are invited to send a team to represent the union in test matches against other unions (both national and club) they field different teams depending on the type of competition one of those teams is known as the All Blacks. What evidence have you that the name of the All Blacks is different when they enter a competition? -- PBS (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    They are listed in those competitions as New Zealand. The name used to market the team does not mean it is the official name. noq (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "they". Do you have any sources that contradict the NZRU and state that the official name of the All Blacks is "New Zealand national rugby union team"? -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    I mean "New Zealand". the "national rugby union team" part is simply a conventional disambiguation term. noq (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per WP:TITLE, Wikipedia article titles must show consistency and be natural, precise, concise, and recognizable. The proposed title "All Blacks" is certainly much more concise, and may be recognizable (per WP:COMMONNAME; although this is debatable), but it definitely does not meet the other requirements. A nickname, even if "official", is not natural or recognizable to readers who do not know about Rugby; this goes against WP:JARGON. The proposed title is also not precise, as evidenced by All Blacks (disambiguation). Consistency is evidenced by the title of other similar articles (including those of other sports, such as New Zealand national football team...which is "officially" nicknamed the All Whites). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 21:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You mention WP:JARGON but I think that is a misuse of that guideline as All Blacks is not a technical name for a technical subject (if anything "New Zealand national rugby union team" is a technical description) and besides JARGON is part of the MOS (content) and not part of the AT Policy (naming) -- if your argument held water All Blacks ought to be removed from the first sentence. The AT policy contradicts your assertion in the criteria bullet point of Recognizability (see the wording below), as anyone familiar with the subject although not necessarily an expert in the subject area will recognize the name All Blacks. -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As I have learned by experience, I recommend you just let users present their perspective and quit badgering them. Your position has already been made clear from the start. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not badgering, because an opinion has to be based on the AT policy and its guidelines. It is unusual for an editor who has expressed an opinion changes it. So a question is not just for the person to whom it is directed but also to disinterested editor and the closing admin to help them determine the consensus based on the closing instructions. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The titles of "○○○ national rugby union team" are more easily and immediately understood than the nickname like "All Blacks." Sawol (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    What is your evidence, based on the AT policy, that a descriptive title is more immediately understood and should therefore be used? What is your evidence that "All Blacks" is a just a nickname and not the official team name? Why do you recommend ignoring the arguments presented in WP:COMMONNAME? -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We currently have a consistent naming format (in line with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA), and I see no reason to make an exception here. As alluded to below, I also don't believe that using teams' nicknames for their article titles is a productive route to go down. Number 57 00:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any advantage to naming this All Blacks over its current name. All Blacks automatically redirects here for anyone searching using that term and they are unlikely to be confused when "New Zealand national rugby union team" pops up instead. It keeps it consistent with other national teams, which isn't a bad thing. Also I don't think we should automatically assume everyone is going to understand what the All Blacks are, while the current name is much more descriptive. AIRcorn (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    As you point out term "New Zealand national rugby union team" is a descriptive one, it is not the name of the team, the URL http://www.allblacks.com/ uses the phrase "NZ National Teams" (so there is more than one national team), which one is the subject of this article? -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

So that the wording do not have to be repeated in different threads here are the AT Policy Criteria.

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

-- PBS (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the consistency argument, can people look to my comments replying to Gibson Flying V above? At the moment we have a convention for how we disambiguate national rugby union teams from articles about the country. For example we call the article Australia national rugby union team rather than Australia for obvious reasons. We don't have the disamgibuation problem here because the common name is All Blacks. So we're not actually changing this disambiguation convention at all. So the consistency argument doesn't stack up. -- Shudde talk 10:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But no one has yet proved that "All Blacks" is the overriding common name for the team. At the World Cup, the IRB (and associated broadcasters) list New Zealand's matches as "New Zealand vs Fooland" (or vice-versa). The term "All Blacks" might come up in promotional material to break up the monotony of continually referring to "New Zealand", but that's the same as using "Red Devils" in place of "Manchester United". "All Blacks" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. – PeeJay 09:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
""All Blacks" is a marketing gimmick, nothing more." Your sources for this statement? -- PBS (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to check common name I did a search in the New York Times for All Blacks and looked through the first result that came up to see how many times the team was called All Blacks and how many times it was called New Zealand.[3] Of course I used All Black as the search term so it may be slightly weighted, but anywho this is an unscientific experiment as common name has been mentioned a few times as a reason to change, but not much evidence presented (here at least, I haven't looked through the old links). I counted ten instances when New Zealand could have been replaced with "the All Blacks" and six uses of the word All Blacks, including the title which should probably mean bonus points. Read into that what you like. AIRcorn (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    Using a simple Google search on All Blacks (not even in quotes), the first URL returned is http://www.allblacks.com/ notice that on that page they use the phrase "NZ National Teams" (so there is more than one national team). The search splits for news and a standard search. The first news item is from the Sydney Morning Herald "The All Blacks factor means the Crusaders will win Super Rugby title" -- New Zealand is not mentioned in the article -- , the first reliable source returned that is not connected with the NZRU is from the New Zealand Herald "All Blacks" -- it mentions the name "New Zealand" once but not for the team but the country "A break in New Zealand has been a bit of a busman's holiday for Ireland rugby coach Joe Schmidt." -- So if these first three reliable sources are any indication of the usage, your article is not representative of all articles. -- PBS (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    I choose the New York Times because I was curious to see what the major usage was in a reliable source not strongly associated with rugby. I was actually slightly surprised that "All Blacks" was used that much by the NYT and if anything would say this provides as much evidence for it being the common name as your sources. AIRcorn (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Reviewing those criteria, the current name meets all but the conciseness one, the "All Blacks" name fails consistency, so is no better objectively, The current name is likely to be more recognizable to those that are not familiar with the sport due to the consistency with other representative teams both in this sport and others, other criteria appear to me to be on a par. I still don't see why the inconsistent name should be used - a redirect exists for those that have heard of "All Blacks" so there is no difficulty introduced in finding the article and the redirect makes it plain who the team represent. noq (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for help with this new artcle:New Zealand national team nomenclature based on the "All Blacks" Bogger (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Top Scorer Points

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Right now, it states that Dan Carter has scored 1457 points and cites the All Blacks website. However when I edited this page to make it 1455, I also got my number from the All Blacks website. For some reason, there are two different pages that list two different statistics.

http://www.allblacks.com/Player/AllBlacks/529 http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/profile.asp?ABID=1031

I am new to tracking sports statistics on Wikipedia. How do you solve something like this?

There is an All Blacks game on right now, and he's already scored 12 points, so it isn't that important. This is more of a question on my part on how we source these kinds of stats. --- BSnapZ (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@BSnapZ: Hey. Yeah I changed the statistic and added the reference. It's important to remember that we are after "verifiability not truth" here (see WP:TRUTH), so having a reference always helps to resolve these kind of questions. This case is curious however (because of the discrepancy you mention). But the reference I added [4] – which is listed in the stats.allblacks.com section, is maybe more accurate than the profile linked from the "the team" page [5] – which I don't think is updated as regularly. I also looked at his stats profile on ESPN [6] and this says 1457 points. Like you said it's out of date now regardless, but I think we'll just wait and see what happens once all those pages get updated. Hopefully they all agree after that! Regardless though, the addition of references always helps. Also just a heads up, signing with ~~~~ after your comments on talk pages will add your username and time-stamp (see WP:TILDE). -- Shudde talk 06:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Shudde: Thanks, sounds good. Also sorry, never used the Talk section before! -- BSnapZ (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Appropriation

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They are very clearly mostly of European ancestry, and Black is a term associated with those of African Ancestry. Take note that this group also performs the Haka, a traditionally Native New Zealander cultural aspect just another example of Cultural Appropriation. 2604:2000:8146:B700:1DE2:8E9E:5B6A:2662 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The name refers to the colour of their uniforms.-gadfium 18:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on New Zealand national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding image to Jersey section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's an image of the AIG jersey on Commons. I'm guessing it wasn't included partially because it's not listed in the relevant categories, but since it's specifically mentioned in the section, I think it's worth including. Would someone without a COI mind adding it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Zealand national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm interested in throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next, but I'm seeing a lot of unreferenced text. Anyone want to help clean this one up? If it helps, here's a list of dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops ... I wasn't expecting 17 bad links, looks like this needs some help before we can rerun it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on New Zealand national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mobile view sections

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all,

The mobile view of this page has the following sections:

-Coaches -Home grounds -See also -Notes -References -Works cited -External links

all under the Players section for some reason. Can someone fix this please?

Go All Blacks. ArthurE.Wil (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Zealand national rugby union team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are there such massive sections on Henry and Hansen?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The All Blacks have a history of nearly 105 years. Why are there 1200 odd words devoted to 10 years of this under Henry and Hansen and piece meal on the other 95? TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheMightyAllBlacks: Two reasons: one is that the All Blacks play many more Tests per year than they used to. Another is that this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and so random editors are much more likely to add material on the match that happened last week than on the 1984 tour of Fiji! I agree it's a problem, and you're welcome to summarise some of the material, or to add more on the team's earlier history. -- Shudde talk 11:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sponsorship of jersey

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The All Blacks jersey previously featured a steinlager sponsorship from 94-99 when the jersey was made by canterbury. The suggestion that AIG is the first jersey sponsor excluding the kit manufacturer is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5BC0:40:1090:FC19:6F67:B1B0:CA2C (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rhodesia

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

@Jln115: has been changing Rhodesia in the records to Zimbabwe. My reasoning for retaining Rhodesia in there is for historical context as every time the All Blacks have played them, it has been as Rhodesia so it makes sense to use the latest iteration that they played. If zimbabwe ever play NZ, then we can update it but for now it should be retained for historical reference, similar to Arabian Gulf and East Africa. I am bringing the discussion here for wider input. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tricky one. Yes, the team/country is now called Zimbabwe, but if NZ have only ever played the team under their old name Rhodesia, then that's the name that should be in the table. If NZ had also played Zimbabwe, I'd have suggested putting "Rhodesia/Zimbabwe" in the table to cover both, but if NZ have only ever played Rhodesia, then it should only say "Rhodesia" in the list. Explanation of name change is given in Zimbabwe national rugby union team lead section, so the reader can follow what's going on. I also think you should be piping to the Rhodesia national rugby union team redirect for clarity, so the reader can see the context, i.e.
{{flagicon|Rhodesia}} [[Rhodesia national rugby union team|Rhodesia]] →   Rhodesia

Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Another question is the source - neither allblacks.com (as cited in the article) nor ESPNscrum includes any New Zealand results against Rhodesia. While I don't doubt the matches took place, I'd say NZ did not accord the games Test Match status. So, there may be a case for removing Rhodesia from the table altogether - but, if consensus deems these 2nd XV games be included, then I'd support the editors above in listing these results under "Rhodesia". -- Ham105 (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Techncially, they are the only non-test nation to have beaten the All Blacks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is interesting - a British colony at the time! One could perhaps suggest that another such non-test colony beat New Zealand five decades earlier? -- Ham105 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah the sources say that Rhodesian players at the time were referred to as "'representative players' and never given the senior cap status accorded to South Africa or in other rugby-playing nations"[1] and that the matches they played before 1981 were referred to as 'international' but that nether side from any of those games considered or recognised the matches as Test Matches, nor awarded test caps. In this case, as Ham105 said, they'd be considered a non-Test representative side. On that basis, they should be removed from the Overall Record. However, I think it's worthwhile to at least link to those tests, (if not mention them further), somewhere in this article, as they are a part of the history of the NZ national team. Let me know your thoughts, all. --BDigs153 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd go along with the idea of removing Rhodesia from the Overall Record but mentioning those tests somewhere in the NZ article as they are a part of the team's history. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, agree with BDigs153 and Rodney Baggins on overall record + article suggestions -- Ham105 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I would suggest we add it in under the Development of a legacy heading, as part of the 1949 New Zealand rugby union tour of South Africa, where this tour is mentioned already.--BDigs153 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The most experienced Test XV and internationals from Rugby, Eton and Harrow". ESPN. 22 August 2011. Retrieved 28 September 2019.

Coaches

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Ham105 I appreciate that you've added the clarification about the coaches nationalties, however I think it's better to have the flags to accompany that fact. Every other National Team page has flags, including France and South Africa, who have also only had head coaches from their respective countries. having the flags adds a visual element that makes it not only visually pleasing but also easier for readers to identify coaches nationalities easily and quickly. As an aside, if a coach of a different nationality is ever appointed, the flags from previous coaches would already be in place which cuts down the work to do to update the new-nationality coach! Let me know what you think, --BDigs153 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Why this article is not called All Blacks

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this talk page needs a permanent section briefly explaining why this article is not called All Blacks. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Coach win rates

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How are coach win rates calculated? I did a simple Games Won / Games Coached and the numbers seem to be out. Anonymous 124563295 (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

>Request to edit and update the All Blacks info, up to 16 July 2022 AmarikSZN (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Request to edit, Thanks AmarikSZN (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reviewed the article as part of the Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009 and I found the following problems. If these aren't addressed then the article will need a featured article review in due course.

  • The lead contains peacock terms.
  • The lead is 6 paragraphs long
  • The Hansen era section contains 2 paragraphs that are unreferenced
  • The foster era section has no references at all
  • The tri nation series contains no references
  • The current squad has no references

Desertarun (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team/Archive_7&oldid=1230740177"