Talk:2005 British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rugby union (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

There needs to be a discussion on how the scores are displayed. Currently it is highly confusing as the home score is shown on the left and the away score on the right. I assume that this is an American convention. For Britons this looks backwards as our convention is to show the Lions score first and then the hosts. If you look at the table the last score has been entered the British way 23-6 not 6-23, that is why I edited the scores.

My suggested solution is to change the table so that the scores are written like this 'Lions 23-6 Wellington'.GordyB 22:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it's not, the home team's score always comes first, unless you Scots are somehow backwards. The other convention is to put the winning side first, but that just complicates things since we've lost one already... Dunc| 09:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Despite the name I'm not Scottish. To me it seems logical to put the Lions score first since the Lions are the subject of the table. Anybody else got an opinion?GordyB 11:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've changed round the final scores to conform to the system used for the other scores. I won't change the format of the table unless others agree with me.

When I said that the convention is to put the touring team first I meant in tables of this kind it is the convention. As you say normally the home team score comes first.GordyB 22:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

My main issue is the high use of peacock terms throughout the article. Tries being described as "magical", wins being described as "dominant", teams playing "inspired" rugby. Evil MonkeyHello July 3, 2005 00:37 (UTC)

  • I did get rid of some of the "peacock terms". However, if every media outlet had this policy, stories would look completely bland. Most of the external stories I saw on the Argentina match said the Pumas played an "inspired" game. The "magical" tries by Daniel Carter? I did zap that term, but the BBC used that very word in describing them. As for describing wins as "dominant", read some of the stories on the second Test and you'd find it hard to avoid using that adjective. Sure, we should try to avoid peacock terms, but there are some times when not using them would be misleading. Dale Arnett 3 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
I agree that news outlet use these adjectives, but Wikipedia is not a news outlet, it is an encyclopedia. To quote the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
"Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact."
So what could be done to go through and say stuff like "Carter's tries were described by the BBC as "magical"". Evil MonkeyHello July 3, 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • On second thought, a better idea might be to remove match reports completely from the article and transfer them lock, stock, and barrel to Wikinews. Dale Arnett 3 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
I've had a go at the Argentina game report. If you think that's OK I will tweak all of them. Moriori July 3, 2005 01:55 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... they might actually work. Dale Arnett 3 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
I hope so. Would be a pity not to carry deflowered reports. I'm off now but will come back to tweak the First Test and subsequent matches. Cheers Moriori July 3, 2005 04:00 (UTC)


So if we were to say that the Lions were 'utterly thumped and owned' by the All Blacks, this would not be appropriate, despite being so very true?

Yes, in the same way that we can't say that Hitler was an evil man. Evil MonkeyHello July 4, 2005 07:46 (UTC)

OK well I'll say it anyway - "The Lions were utterly thumped and owned by the All Blacks. They played like an average NZ under 15 club in the first test, and for all the rosey talk of their improved performance in the second test they were still made to look like a complete bunch of amateurs. The end"

Well, of course the All Blacks were magnificent. They always look invincible in years in there isn't a World Cup to be contested. :) If the Lions want to win the 3rd test, they should print "World Cup Semi-Final" on the tickets. -- GWO
  • Looks like the Wikinews option is sounding better and better all the time. Matter of fact, I was tempted to slap an NPOV on Current sports events, even though I admit to being guilty of using a few of the peacock terms on that page. Dale Arnett 4 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
    • I still think we need the match reports here, but they may end up being "neutered" to be appropriate for Wikipedia. By all means, move them to Wikinews but we still need something here to see who scored tries, any major incidences in the match etc. Evil MonkeyHello July 5, 2005 00:27 (UTC)
    I'm with you EM. Would seem a bit quaint for readers to visit 2005 British and Irish Lions tour to New Zealand but then have to go elsewhere to see match reports. Moriori July 5, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Before going any further, I did something I haven't done since this thread started: I took a look at Wikinews for its NPOV policy. Guess what... it's identical to Wikipedia's! Point being is, there's NO place in any Wiki project at all for a match report that uses any of the terms typically used in news articles. If we follow the NPOV policy strictly, we can't even put match reports on Wikinews!

The point I'm getting at is... I think I may have just opened up a HUGE can of worms. Dale Arnett 5 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

One further thought on this issue: If NPOV is so important, maybe the lesser evil is actually to direct users elsewhere for match reports. Dale Arnett 5 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

Why? Concise match reports can be NPOV. Why shouldn't they admirably support a main entry? Moriori July 5, 2005 02:13 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they can't. I think what's happening here is that the definition of NPOV here seems to be so strict that it would be impossible for any match report to qualify and still be truly informative. Once you get past who scored, when, and perhaps any key injuries or penalties, it looks like there's no way you can stay out of NPOV-land. Dale Arnett 5 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
Yes there is. Simply leave out POV. Match reports are no different from any other article. Moriori July 5, 2005 02:50 (UTC)
Match reports may not be any different from any other article, but it seems to be much harder to avoid POV in them. If everything dealing with a match report creates a POV dispute from here on out, maybe it's just better to give up and provide links to external sites for match reports. Dale Arnett 5 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
I do not agree with such a copout. It is tantamount to stating we cannot write NPOV articles, which is not so. I also do not agree there is a POV dispute, but a desire on your part to move the reports elsewhere which is an entirely different matter. If the reports are POV here, they are going to be POV anywhere, so what's the point? Moriori July 5, 2005 03:12 (UTC) Also, Dale, I have just noticed that you have gone through the article adding wikis to players who have already been wikied. Is it not convention that people are wikied the first time they are mentioned, and then are not wikied in subsequent mentions? Moriori July 5, 2005 03:29 (UTC)
Point 1: I didn't raise the point about moving the match reports elsewhere until after the POV dispute started. If match reports can be created that don't trigger a POV dispute, by all means they should be here. If you or anyone else can create a truly NPOV match report, go ahead. I'm withdrawing any request I might have made for a move. I'm just getting frustrated with the whole situation, and I guess all of this (especially my thoughts about getting rid of the reports) is my exasperation showing through. Point 2: I should have been aware of the convention about not wikifying names more than once. <g> My bad on that one. Dale Arnett 5 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
Hey Dale. NO PROBS. I feel we basically have a nice encyclopedic article, and of course others will help us improve it. Re Point 2, that's not a big prob either. Take care. Moriori July 5, 2005 07:05 (UTC)


Hey guys, not quite sure how to do it myself, so I will leave you to do it. I was always under the impression that Dennis Hickie played on the wing and not on the back row!

WikiProject Rugby union[edit]

I'm not sure why this article hasn't been included in WikiProject Rugby union; it clearly qualifies. It also requires further work to avoid the argumentative approach adopted in writing about some aspects of the tour. I've had a stab at this, but there's still room for improvement - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IRFU Flag[edit]

Can those that keep removing the flag and starting unnessacary edit wars please use the talk point to air their reasons for these unhelpful edits. The IRFU flag was used with the reasoning that is there to highlight the united provinces of Ireland as the Republic and Ulster flags cannot be used separately.

The IRFU flag is copyright and will be removed accordingly.GordyB (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Come on guys. Put a bit of effort in here. Rather then just undoing edits maybe it would an idea to get more involved and carryout decent edits. I've now removed all the flags so are to give an overall more uiform look to the page (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)).

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)