Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team

Template:WP LoCE

Article title

Why is this article called "All Blacks"? Every other national rugby union team follows the same pattern, as does every other national football team, rugby league team, cricket team, etc., so why should the New Zealand national rugby union team be any different. I think I should submit this to WP:RM. – PeeJay 13:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See the earlier discussion at Talk:All Blacks/Archive 1#Naming of this article.-gadfium 18:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any reasons there that make me want to change my mind, tbh. – PeeJay 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well two simple reasons: (a) "All Blacks" is name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" (as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions), and (b) "All Blacks" is the official name of the team, trademarked by the New Zealand Rugby Union. The only reason we would name the article anything else is to achieve consistency of Wikipedia article names, which, while a desirable outcome when possible, is not the primary goal of our Naming Conventions policy. --Stormie 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Succession box discussion

A discussion has been started about the breadth and formatting of succession boxes for national rugby union teams at WikiProject Rugby union. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Succession boxes. - Shudde ^talk 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Haka

I've made a few copy-edits in this section, but I think it needs more work. The quote attributed to Derek Lardelli appears nowhere in the referenced article and a couple of the other references are dead links. Also, saying that the final gesture "has been interpreted as" a throat-slitting is, I think, more NPOV than "appears to be". Jimmy Pitt (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Both those things are correct. The new haka was definitely composed by Derek Lardelli, I'll try and find a link that's not dead. - Shudde ^talk 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't questioning that Lardelli was the composer, that's indisputable (I think!). And the views attributed to him in the quote may well be accurate; it's just that they're not mentioned in that particular article, which means the quote is unsourced. I should also mention that, before I edited it, the quote had no closing quote mark: I think it should be where I placed it but I could be wrong. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's fixed now. I found another ref with that quote. - Shudde ^talk 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image from Japan

From what I've been able to discover, according to [1] the All Blacks didn't play in Japan in 2000. I don't think the image Image:All blacks at chichibunomiya.jpg is the All Blacks, maybe it's the Junior All Blacks or a New Zealand XV? Doesn't anyone know anything about this? - Shudde ^talk 04:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a news article about it: [2]. Describes the game as "a UNICEF charity match", but certainly talks it up as the All Blacks playing a warm-up game en-route to their tour of France and Italy. Oh, and another mention: [3] --Stormie (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was the All Blacks. I was there and took the photo. --Historian (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally all matches, including matches against clubs, Barbarians etc are listed on the site. It's very strange it's not there. It would be good to find an official record of it. - Shudde ^talk 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is unusual, given some of the minor matches which do have full details at allblacks.com. Might be worth an email to them? --Stormie (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Squad

This is transcluded from our respective talk pages:

Hey, I reverted your changes of the All Blacks squad. The squad Henry announced was simply a training squad. The reason he had the squad is because there is only one week between the Final of the Super 14 and the Ireland Test. The actual Test squad will be announced following the Super 14 final (Sunday 1 June). The training group doesn't include any Crusaders (rugby) who will be playing on Saturday. I understand why you thought it was the All Blacks squad, but unfortunately not! Sorry about this, but the training squad and Test squad are completely different. - Shudde ^talk 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I detailed that it was a training squad, a much more accurate squad than the WC squad from 2007. I noted that the Crusaders players were left in, you are more than welcome to remove them and put a note in stating that they are not included at this moment in time.Londo06 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The heading is current squad. This isn't the current squad, what it is is a training group that definitely includes players that will not be in the squad when it's announced next week. The notes you have added to not make it at all clear that this is not an All Blacks squad, and if one didn't know better, they would think it was. On top of that, you have put several players province as their Super 14 team; traditionally a player is associated primarily with their province, not their Super 14 side. So at the moment what we have is players there that will not be in next weeks squad, and then incorrect info regarding their provinces (plus inconsistencies with that). - Shudde ^talk 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes, but would like another opinion. My concern is that at best this is a speculative squad, and at worst it's crystal ball gazing. The last official squad was the RWC one, so I don't see what's wrong with leaving it there until the next official squad is announced. - Shudde ^talk 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated to show train-on squad. Alexsanderson83 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah except now we have changed a section title, so if there were any piped links, such as All Blacks#Current squad have now gone dead. The real squad is announced in three days. Plus, there is still a mixture of the provincial and Super 14 teams listed beside the player's names—which apart from being inconsistent and confusing, is wrong. Traditionally, the players are announced with their province, not their Super 14 team being their affiliated team. Of course, this team wasn't officially announced, because it's not the Test squad. - Shudde ^talk 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, who's smart idea was it to have a + next too Sione Lauaki; why is this necessary/relevant and why is he the only one, when many of them didn't participate in last year's tri nations? - Shudde ^talk 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that there is no point messing about with the training squad. The actual 2008 squad will be announced in, what, three days? And then we can add it to the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, fiddling over up-to-the-minute information on who was selected to train in the week leading up to the squad announcement really does nothing to improve this encyclopedia article. --Stormie (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. - Shudde ^talk 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To be precise: the squad will be announced on Sunday June 1st at 10:00AM New Zealand time.[4] --Stormie (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree with the crystal-balling idea. Gone through the recent edits and this one removes the Crusaders players from 2007, and it also deals with the technicality that the squad is in training, even if the language is a little too Australian for my liking.Londo06 12:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. Also the players are now associated with their Super 14 team which is wrong. Like Stormie said, this is an encyclopaedia, and the inclusion of the training squad is non-encyclopaedic. Many of these players (up to ten or twelve) won't be included on the squad announced on Sunday, plus the section name has still been changed (bad idea). - Shudde ^talk 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with where you are coming from entirely.Londo06 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You disagree because you disagree that Wikipedia should not be a news service? Or because you feel that a list of names of people who trained for a week in the leadup to the squad announcement has lasting encyclopedic value? --Stormie (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Final squad has been announced and added to the article, can we lay this to rest now? --Stormie (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We can.Londo06 10:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Home grounds map

The map is not accurate; Waikato and the Auckland stadiums are displaced to the west. Having such a map is a good idea though. While the existing map can be easily fixed, I suggest replacing it with a map constructed using the {{Location map+}} and {{Location map~}} templates. An example can be seen at List of schools in West Coast, New Zealand. The advantage of these templates is that they are based on latitude and longitude rather than pixels, so it becomes trivial to resize the map. It may be possible to show both Eden Park and North Harbour Stadium separately on the map by putting the labels on opposite sides of the dots.-gadfium 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be renamed?

Just wondering, since both the South Africa national rugby union team and Australia national rugby union team articles do not use their nicknames in the title. I propose that this be moved to New Zealand national rugby union team, and the intro be modified accordingly, to match with other countries' national sports teams. 206.248.181.239 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Extensively discussed already. Please read Talk:All Blacks/Archive 1#Naming of this article and familiarize yourself with the arguments. --Stormie (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Per before, it is where it belongs. Alexsanderson83 11:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)