User talk:TheMightyPeanut

Cameron Fenton

You reverted my edits on Edinburgh Rugby yesterday. Could you please tell me where I am supposed to put the source/reference. I don't think any of the other players have a source/reference in the squad sections, though they do have sources on their own pages.Gomach (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there @Gomach:, to be honest, it doesn't matter all that much where the reference is, as long as it's there (and players don't just get added to the squad without a reliable source backing it up). If you have a look at the Edinburgh Rugby article, you could effectively copy what was done for Jaco van der Walt, another player that is now in the squad, but not (yet) listed on the official site. Feel free to give me a shout if you have any other questions... Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, TheMightyPeanut. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TheMightyPeanut. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, TheMightyPeanut. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,042 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

hello

hello you erase all my updates after I probably make mistakes after do not change my updates the RCT being a loyal supporter of the club I look at all their match I go to the stadium so for example jp piertersen when I say he scored 4 tries is the truth 2 against the metro racing a counter Lyon and a cons oyonnax thank you for your understanding good cotinuation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.69.84.197 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @91.69.84.197:, after your edit on JP Pietersen, it states that by 22 May 2017, he made 10 appearances for Toulon, scoring 20 points. On 22 May 2017, he never even signed for Toulon or played a single match for them. So your changes are resulting in incorrect statistics. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

cameron moulene page

hey(: thank you for your response, I'll take those down now.

as seen in this page, I was told by @I dream of horses: that this, this, this and this were good enough links, but fair enough.

could you possibly link me to some you find reliable enough? Gabi.labuschagne (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've also added this link (: Gabi.labuschagne (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2011 Georgia IRB Nations Cup squad

Template:2011 Georgia IRB Nations Cup squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017–18 Cheetahs season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Clancy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sunwolves logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sunwolves logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

ARU referees

Hi, TheMightyPeanut. After being directed to the Rasta Rasivhenge talk page, I saw you were part of an earlier discussion on rugby referee categories. I have subsequently proposed a merger of categories as a potential solution. Please visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 15#Category:ARU_referees if you would like to comment. Thank you. -- Ham105 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

christopher bosch

Good day, I am christopher bosch's father. You have assisted in the past with his profile. I do not have the time to become an editor of his profile, there are to many nitty gritty on wikipedia and it becomes too much of a hazzle for someone not familiar to all the guidelines. Can you assist me with the following if possible: - I have tried to add a profile picture which is on the Griquas website and as far as I know not owned by anybody, Unfortunately it kept on being deleted which is a problem. It is not special, it is not unique, it is nothing except a picture of himself? Would it be possible to upload something like that. - His profile is outdates and actually looks if he stopped playing rugby; He played for Boland some matches last year in the supersport cup He played to games for the griquas from the bench, Free State and Western Province. He already started two games for them in the warm up games. - He can play both centre positions as well as wing.mI dont know how to change that. _ I only changed his weight becuase it is crucial in his profile and basically impossableto change at SARU.

The kid is trying to get an opportunity in Europe and it cannot be done with an incomplete profile. I know you cannot actually work on individual requests but this is all part of trying to get opportunities.He does not have a compony to promote and publisize him and sometimes try to use this method. If it cannot be done then I think it would be better without a profile on Wikipedia.

Thank you Fanie BoschFlipBokram (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @FlipBokram:, firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a tool for promotion. Wikipedia guidelines available here states that:

Content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

• Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
• Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Secondly, I don't have the time to look at his article at the moment either, but I am more than happy to help you to do it. I would recommend using your personal sandbox; basically edit the Christopher Bosch article, copy the entire content, click on the "Sandbox" button at the top of the screen (create it if necessary), and then paste the content. You can then edit there to your heart's content without affecting anything important.

Wikipedia isn't that difficult to edit (you did fine in your message above!), here are a few tips I think might be useful:

 • Add links to other articles. This is done by enclosing the article name in double square brackets, eg. [[Boland Cavaliers]] will display as Boland Cavaliers, with a link to the page. Sometimes, the article name and text are not exactly the same, then you can use a | (pipe). For example, the Griquas rugby article is called "Griquas (rugby)", but you wouldn't want to say "he played for Griquas (rugby)". However, if you type [[Griquas (rugby)|Griquas]] it will link to the "Griquas (rugby)" article, but display the text "Griquas", i.e. Griquas.

 • Ensure that all content is verifiable. Basically, make sure that anyone can check that what you say is right. This is usually done by adding a reference to a website. For example, this article can be used to verify that he represented the Boland Cavaliers in the Rugby Challenge competition. Enclose the URL of the website within <ref></ref>, eg. <ref>https://www.supersport.com/rugby/supersport-challenge/news/170506/Western_Province_win_Cape_derby</ref>.

 • Stick to the facts and avoid puffery, i.e. don't say something like "he was fantastic in the match and scored two outstanding tries" (your opinion of "fantastic" and "outstanding" might be different from someone else's). Instead, say something like "he delivered a man-of-the-match performance, scoring two tries", etc.

Lastly, if you took a profile picture from the Griquas website, it's owned by Griquas. That is copyright violation. You then tried uploading it and called it your "own work". That is disingenuous, since it clearly isn't your own work. If you are his father, I'm sure you have access to a lot of photos that you can upload instead that actually is your own work.

Hope that all helps; give me a shout if you need any further help! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Interested in becoming a new page patroller?

User:Amorymeltzer/sandbox/npp/note I know you were recently asked, but I figured it was worth checking again. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so we are not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Amorymeltzer: and @Insertcleverphrasehere: – thanks for the ask; my main interest is still in updating page content. There was a request a while ago to help out with AfC, since there was a large backlog, so I helped out for a few days, but didn't really have the time to continue, and have subsequently stopped reviewing those too. While I will definitely accept an invitation to become a new page patroller, I don't know how much help I'll be. Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Overall Table OT on Super Rugby Wiki page

This is a return to the same subject from last season. Once again, I feel that the insertion of the Overall Table "OT" is as unnecessary as it is confusing. It does not provide any particularly useful information regarding the competition.........well nothing of any note until the end of the home and away season, when the top 8 places provide the places and order of the finalists. I believe that a simple table that provides a weekly update on this is all that is required rather than the "OT". Indeed, this is exactly what is presented on the SANZAR site https://sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/

Effectively, the way this competition is structured is about three separate competitions where there is a race to win each grouping and a wildcard, a situation that is adequately portrayed by the SANZAR display. I believe that having this "OT" table simply yields the confusing impression that this is one overall competition, which is wrong. Actually, the reduction in this competition to these three conferences has yielded a much improved format, particularly with the emphasis on each conference having a full complement of home and away matches for their teams.........this has certainly been an improvement from an Australian perspective, helping all teams to play more and more relevant games in this country........something the competition surely needed, albeit at the expense of the three franchises that were eliminated. jl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.59.83 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I had a quick look round at some of the major Super Rugby websites, and 4 out of the first 5 I looked at actually contained an overall table:

• Fox Sports
• SuperXV.com
• NZ Super Rugby
• Rugby.com.au
• SARU (the odd one out)

So the overall table is definitely in use by a number of sites, and therefore worthy of inclusion. Using your reasoning that it doesn't provide useful information until the end of the round-robin season, can't the same thing be said about the conference tables? If you just view the current quarter final fixtures, you don't have visibility of how close one team is to taking one of those spots off another team, etc.

It's also definitely not three separate competitions, half of a team's fixtures are intra-conference fixtures. And a team can't qualify for the play-offs by (for example) finishing second in that team's conference, so a team's fortunes is very dependent upon what's happening in another conference. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I recall around this time last year, that you opened up the page for discussion and invited comments. My overall thrust was/is that "confused people don't buy", that being this super rugby competition was failing to gain traction in the Australian sporting landscape because it was/is so confusing........man it was so bad last year that one needed a PhD to get one's head around it. Another issue was the lack of local derbies played on home soil, particularly when the teams are primarily labeled/known by their nicknames. If I was dictator for a day (don't we all have such a fantasy?), the first thing I'd do is emphasise the city names, but that's not to suggest eliminating the nicknames altogether. Canberra v Tokyo or Auckland v Durban just has more meaning and I'm sure better marketable value for a sports comp that must surely have a wonderful capacity to market the competing cities........but alas, they choose to emphasise these largely unknown and essentially meaningless (to the "five minute" viewer) nicknames. I understand that the name "Melbourne" was required to be paramount in order to get Victorian Government sponsorship. I would've thought that this was a hint to the organisers of the comp. Surely a fair degree of tax payer support to any sports competition is in marketing the names of the cities they represent, surely this "world southern hemisphere comp" is well advantaged to market itself in this way? Perhaps I'm just missing something? Perhaps they could emphasise these nicknames for the home derbies (where viewers are likely to be aware of the home cities) but emphasise the city names for the international games (where international marketing might be of more value)....just thoughts from the "couch dictator". Perhaps that's getting too confusing....lol. My overall point is that simplicity gets the message across, simplicity in names, simplicity in structure. I come from the perspective of an outsider to Rugby, an AFL fan in ADL. "Insiders" may well have their PhD in the game, its teams and the arcane nature of last year's comp, but for someone who was prepared to "give this comp a look" I found its general complexity to be unfortunate and off putting. I'm thinking of all this from a marketing perspective. An insider, such as yourself, would see things differently, quite possibly reveling in such nuances. One of the delights of cricket is its endless statistics and "drill down", I know the feeling of delighting in such stuff. However Rugby, and this comp, does need all the help it can get to market itself in this country. Of course the on field failures of the Australian teams last year didn't help. Things are clearly better this year, in particular the overall structure of the comp with its lean "three conferences". It seems to work better, "Twiggy Forrest" not withstanding. However, I digressed. The points you made are relevant and I did think along similar lines as, at some level, I'm only engaging in an academic discussion, just a little musing on the side, so to speak. Of course, there's a certain "each way bet" about whether this is three competitions or one gigantic one. As far as I'm concerned, part of the disaster of 2017 was the sense of confusion over this very issue........what exactly were the Australian teams playing for (as opposed to the much more clearly defined AFL and NRL)? It does seem more clear this season..........I view it as "ESSENTIALLY" three separate comps which then come together for a final face off at the end. If I were to regain my "dictator's hat" again, I would market this comp in this country as an Australian competition, the leading teams having the possibility to enter this "end of season international play off". It's just about image and how it gets marketed as far as I'm concerned. Having each team play its conference "neighbours" in a home and away situation is a big plus compared to last year's debacle. It's not really a big point but I simply sense that the SANZAR layout better illustrates what is going on now, whereas this "OT", while it can be argued that there is SOME information in it, simply brings us back to last year's confusion. It's just a matter of emphasis and how it relates to "outsiders" from a marketing perspective, perhaps the perspective of SANZAR. But I suppose your page is for aficionados. It's your page, so you're the boss cheers jl 118.210.175.22 (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely not "the boss"; this is Wikipedia and it's a collaborative effort, and as you point out, this whole issue was discussed a year ago. The page is not for aficionados either (there are Wikipedia essays like this one encouraging it to not just be for readers with a knowledge of the subject). In this regard, can you please tell me what you're confused about? On the 2018 AFL season page, there is a "Ladder" section. How is that different / more confusing than the overall Super Rugby table? There are teams, ranked in order, and indicating which teams are currently set to progress to a future stage. Exactly the same on the NRL page. In all three tables, it shows and highlights the top 8 teams (those in play-off spots). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"the boss" was just friendly banter, I'm not really all that fussed, there's clearly a lot of "each way bet" about all this. Yes, in principle, I am entitled to edit this page (as I've done on other wiki pages) but I'm not about to unilaterally edit out the "OT". The whole comp is much better now, being more lean. eg, my observations last year were instigated by seeing no less than three different tables (OT, Groups, Conferences) and clearly that's better now. On the other hand, just a moment of conjecture if I may please. There are clearly two competing perspectives in this competition, that of the traditionalists and that of the globalists. If I was "dictator for a day" I would, from an Australian perspective, do my best to present it to Australian fans as an Australian competition first and foremost. In this way, may I suggest a format along the lines of a) Australian Conference only contains Australian teams (Perth replaces Tokyo........go back to five Australian teams). Same goes for South Africa, it has its own five team conference, so there are three, five team conferences. b) Competition ONE; Each Conference has its own separate home and away series, 8 games. The winners are each acknowledged as such, end of Competition ONE. c) Competition TWO; Cross Conference Games as desired. At the moment it looks like 8 games to round out a 16 game season. d) Finals; to be hosted by the three conference winners, the next best placed "Competition TWO" side and their opponents being the next four placed "Competition TWO" sides. The seedings for the finals to be decided by the results of "Competition TWO", except that the winners of "Competition ONE" will retain finals hosting rights regardless of their performance in "Competition TWO". Of course there would be +/- about such a proposal, not the least being the place of the Jaguars and Sunwolves. Perhaps they could be incorporated into a fourth conference that includes three Pacific Island teams (Fiji, Tonga, Samoa??) and perhaps further evolving into an Asian conference along the lines of what Twiggy Forrest appears to be organising (teams in other large populations/TV and media markets....as is clearly the ultimate purpose of the SANZAR arrangement). Perhaps the energies and monies that he's putting into that comp could be diverted to developing this "Asian/Pacific Conference" with the proviso that his beloved Force franchise be allowed back into the Australian conference. This arrangement would enable the four separate conference winners to garner hosting rights in the finals. One may ask, "what's the point of Competition TWO for the four conference winners, given that they've already qualified as host teams?" Answer, seedings and the inside running to host the two preliminary finals and grand final, not to mention momentum. I'm sure there would be negatives to this approach however I believe the advantages would be a) Logistics/costs improvements, let each of South Africa/NZ/Australia basically organise/run/promote their own conferences and "Competition ONE"s to their own demographics as they see fit. Let these be seen as dedicated local competitions to their respective markets with better economics.b) Local relevance. The fans in each conference would see this as a legitimate battle for a winner of their own competition rather than merely becoming a seeding for the finals of some other competition that is so "grand" as to lose local relevance. c) Clearly defined goals for each stage of this overall competition yields more fan engagement instead of the vagueness of the present, rather amorphous, arrangement. d) Build up and momentum of "Competition ONE" is strong and not lost when teams go off to far flung parts of the planet and play in the middle of the night. I think this would be a major plus for the Australian situation where people have other competitions to follow where they know exactly what their teams are playing for and don't have endless gaps that just result in loss of momentum and therefor interest. My proposal (it's just a draft of ideas) is basically about the Australian perspective however I think this would also suit Africa where I understand ratings have also been low and I'm sure the New Zealanders would appreciate a genuine local competition before endlessly piling up points at odd hours in far flung places. Clearly the SANZAR perspective is to have this "One gigantic competition that incorporates growth media markets". As grand as this scheme is I believe that it has impacted negatively on "traditional markets" and formats and what I propose is a balance between two competing perspectives and needs. Frankly, I think that SANZAR has grown too fast and a better balance needs to be struck between real, traditional, grass roots markets and grand, media driven, globalisation plans. I think that what I propose is a "step back" in the right direction. 118.210.175.22 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You can't please all the people all of the time. While you're suggesting a more localised Competition ONE, just this week, there have been calls to reduce the number of NZ derbies. Your Competition ONE proposals sound similar to the former Super 10 competition; teams from South Africa and New Zealand earned qualification to this competition by finishing in the top 3 or 4 in from their domestic leagues. A logical option would be to have the domestic leagues (run by local governing bodies) double up as your Competition ONE, with the top-performing teams progressing to Competition TWO. That way, this qualifying phase can be run in any format that the various governing bodies see fit, and that more evenly-matched teams should face each other in Competition TWO. However, that would mean that SANZAAR must be willing to relinquish their rights to the majority of games being played; can't see that happening. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the nuances of the former incarnations of this comp (eg Super 10), however I suspect that what you've written maybe one way of doing a "Competition ONE" whereas my suggestion is another.........ie, mine is a "static" membership (like the AFL and NRL) and what you've written here is possibly more akin to a "relegation" system with a broad number of community based and traditionally established clubs all vying for the chance to "step up to the "next level". A little bit like European style relegation systems that probably work better in larger populations and economic bases. But even there, it occurs to me that the English have evolved into a "semi static" situation of a Premier League that is distinctly separate to the divisions and, then again, with about four major clubs vying for the major premiership while the rest can seemingly "go please themselves"....perhaps their "prize" is just qualifying to be in the "Big League" with all of its riches. I notice that the soccer situation here appears to be a contest between the "statics" who prefer a "settled franchise based league" and the "relegationists" who are fighting for these more community based clubs to "have a crack" at the top level. My sense is that we don't have the population/economy to try the Euro model and the soccer people need to be careful lest hot emotions win over cool minded business sense. In the rugby situation, it may be that "relegation" works better in NZ whereas "static" works better in Australia .........ie, here it is probably better to just have five professional franchises that play off in "Competition ONE" each year as it would be better economics and less drain on the available talent base whereas the situation in NZ is likely different. ??? The major point being that "Comp ONE" is entirely up to each Union to organize themselves, according to their own circumstances and marketed to their own demographics as such. The winners of these should be marketed as a dedicated winner of said "Comp ONE" in each country and not merely an afterthought as a "Conference winner" for seedings purposes going in the finals........let that be the purpose of "Comp TWO"........and clearly marketed as such. Of course this goes against the "grand schemes" of those at SANZAR to push towards this mega globalized, media driven sports league, no doubt to get a foothold into Japan/Asia (with the upcoming world cup in mind) and presumably become a world player in competition to Soccer and Euro Rugby. Such starry eyed vision, but all at the expense of traditional markets. It's an interesting tension of differing needs. Of course the contracts have been signed so the ARU are stuck with their present agreements, however I would propose that a "minimalist" solution of this "tension" (for now) would simply be retaining the present "static" make up of the overall Super Rugby comp, but more definitively separating each of the three stages as I described (Comp ONE, Comp TWO, Finals). Yes I agree with your observations. I sense that the Shute Shield gets more kudos in Sydney than the Waratahs and will likely continue to get more kudos if Israel continues to embarrass everyone concerned. I felt so sorry watching that lady at the ARU having to cover for him. I think the ARU needed Folau's social media "contribution" like the proverbial hole in the head. If he, and the other like mindeds in his team, continue with their behavior then that could be the death knell for the Super Rugby and then they'd have to find somewhere else to go "scratch out" their million dollar stipends. One of the benefits of a dedicated local "Comp ONE" would be momentum. Sometimes I wonder at the mentality of the people who organized the Super Rugby schedule in the past. They had the competition originally scheduled with a "mid season international break". Just when people might be getting into the swing of this comp they send everyone on holidays for an entirely different competition to take place. What must the "non international" players have done to maintain match fitness, not to mention loss of media and public momentum? A dedicated "Comp ONE" would be advantageous if not for reasons of momentum alone. Another thought is about player eligibility and recruitment. Are players eligible to play "outside their conference" so to speak? I presume that the Sunwolves have many "expats" among their ranks. I'm surprised that more effort is not made to recruit NZ players to the Australian and South African teams in order to even up the comp. Or is their asking price too much? This business of "NZ or the bush" must inevitably be corrosive to public interest over the years, on both sides of the Tasman. Perhaps look at an Indian Premier League auction system? Re the article you cited. That just looks like newspaper talk and a coach who was caught up in a bad moment because his team lost. I think these quotes answer the issue, "They're what whets the appetite for most onlookers each weekend..." and "It's great for fans and broadcasters' ratings, and it reduces travel for the teams......." Perhaps these people need to think about what players in the NRL and AFL have to go through. SUMMARY: -Comp ONE: Aim is to get a Local (Conference) Winner after local home/away............use nicknames...marketed to local audiences as a dedicated standalone comp -Comp TWO: Aim is get wildcards and seedings for finals.............use city names...marketed to international audiences (may need to give some credit for points gained in Comp ONE due to unevenness of this comp where all teams are not playing each other on a fair home/away basis) -Finals: Aim is to get overall winner.............use city names...marketed to international audiences

Don't break the competitions up or mix and match them...........worst example was having international TESTS during the super rugby season

Geographically, Jaguars are hard to slot in and may need to be relocated to a Euro comp after the Asian conference grows to a point where it has its own fully fledged five teams (as is clearly Twiggy Forrest's ultimate aim).118.211.49.254 (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you re the split season, there's a definite loss of momentum. That should be addressed within the next year or so as World Rugby moves towards a more globalised season, details of which are still to be rubber-stamped. You keep comparing Super Rugby with AFL/NRL. The former is not only international, but intercontinental. There are many more stakeholders, each with their own agendas. It's possibly too big. But there's little that speculation and suggestions will do really... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

My comparisons with the two "local leagues" are only by way of illustration in order to think about what works and what doesn't. All these four codes have pluses and minuses working for or against them. Specifically, I think the NZ media got that poor coach in an off moment. Is he seriously suggesting more "soft games to rest up" between NZ derbies? I'm sure he's not. The thing that makes sports comps work (as a business and hence as an entertainment) is even ness all through the league. Any suggestion of "soft games" at the professional level is surely a detriment. What I would say is that the NZ teams are individually at a statistical disadvantage, effectively being in the "Group of Death" so to speak but this is only an issue of relativity when comparing them with the other conferences for finals placings/seedings rather than an intrinsic issue. I notice reports that Israel is unrepentant about his "social commentaries". So he's on a million a season and then he wants to embarrass the industry and sponsors who pay him. Free speech carries with it certain responsibilities, especially with his profile. I consider the damage he's doing to rugby's image to be worse than what the cricketers did to their industry. These guys are the public image of an entire industry, he has a lot to learn. If he wants his unfettered "free speech" then best he leave rugby and go into politics. Sorry for all my changes of subject but a sports industry that is struggling in a competitive environment surely needed this like the proverbial hole in the head............well that's my two bob's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.49.254 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet, player welfare must also be a consideration. The Chiefs contracted 6 props for this season. All 6 are currently injured. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

??? Well I'm not up with the intricacies of NZ rugby but it simply strikes me as being not very professional to blame the level of injuries on the quality of the opposition. There would be many reasons for injuries, it could even be just a string of bad luck if it's a short term issue. For my part, the "negative" for NZ teams playing in a "group of death" is that your grouping makes it harder to achieve "conference winner" status compared to the quality of the other winners. With the re arrangement of the overall competition I think it will be more fair to NZ teams. ie, three conference winners and one wildcard claiming "hosting rights" in the first week of the finals..........likely to get two NZ hosts rather than two South African hosts. Lets face it, NZ deserves this, if this happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.49.254 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not being blamed on the quality of the opposition, it's being blamed on the intensity of the opposition. Three of the five NZ teams had to draft in additional props already. And here is a simple solution to having groups of death... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well well well, isn't it funny how we all interpret things differently. a) I'm not a rugby person, just a distant, and might I add, dispassionate observer of a sports industry that has many issues that need working through. I take no sides. b) I observe that the NZ teams are at a level of relative disadvantage in this conference system, I think this is very clear. I am not at all surprised at the comments being made here. Effectively the present conference system works against their teams. Indeed, earlier this season, I notice that their bottom team, the Blues (hey, that's AUCKLAND) defeated South Africa's far and away top team, the Lions (yes indeed, that's Jo'burg).....IN SOUTH AFRICA. c) Now far be it for me to say anything about games of rugby in NZ but there's a term in politics, "the dog whistle" which means, people speaking with ulterior motives. When I read the previous article about blaming all these injuries on "intensity" of the opposition, I inferred they were just complaining about the unbalance of the draw (Group of Death) and my goodness, it all came out in this follow up article did it not? What the Kiwis REALLY want is a level playing field "proper round robin" format. Now I think we have arrived at the core issue have we not? For the Kiwis, "proper" means "level playing field", and who could blame them? But this would inevitably lead to all five NZ teams totally dominating the competition, and I wonder how many finals would even be played outside of the shaky isles? This is clearly what SANZAR fear most and is clearly the crux of the differences in desires of the different stakeholders. I'm sure that the boardrooms of SANZAR and ALL the competing countries have so many of these issues whirling around. And then there are the media and sponsorship requirements. This project is a gigantic octopus of competing interests and agendas, not the least one being the disparity in the quality (and intensity) between NZ.............and the rest of the planet. It's why I made the suggestions that I did, not because I might think I have all the answers (phew, who does?) but because I find this conundrum to be quite interesting. If they get it right, this concept could fly, if they get it wrong the whole thing could unravel in quick time. At the moment it's on a knife edge I suspect. I stand by my thoughts.........clearly defined stages, "Comp ONE" to be about clearly defined winners in each country in order to generate local interest about that stage. Then the next two stages to build from "Comp ONE" but with the new focus to an international champion, of which there can only be one, regardless of how superior are the full complement of NZ teams. I would open up the player movements much more, even think along the lines of the Indian Premier League in T20. Having the situation of continuous NZ domination is a recipe for disaster. I'm not suggesting I have all the answers in a complex and imperfect situation, however it wouldn't surprise me if a well run formula wouldn't return Australia to five teams, perhaps even a sixth in ADL. That might seem ridiculous but I'm sure a local franchise with some high quality Kiwis THAT WAS COMPETITIVE (in an Australia only home/away) would find a market here. Finally, I noted the comment in that NZ paper which goes back to the original issue that I raised, "This creates a rather idiotic-looking overall table which has often seen teams with fewer points ranked ahead of others."118.211.49.254 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikieditiser2

Hi there. Thank you for your guidance. I will read the guidelines and take note of all your comments. I appreciate your advice and hope to get better at this. My intention is to edit in good faith and I see there is a lot I need to learn before I get the hang of this. I will resubmit that edit and hopefully be within the parameters of a good submission. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditiser2 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

?? I'm not sure if the last comments were from "TheMightyPeanut" or some other third party (with an ulterior motive?). For what it is worth, I'll respond by taking the above comment at face value. My last comments were not actually intended to specifically target this wiki page as I feel it is fine. I am a little unsure of the value of the "OT", however not fussed either as I think the problems (being too much information and too many tables) relate to last year's situation. Clearly last year's comp was a disaster at every level and the Force was made to pay, even though they had an inherent following and set up in Perth that had a genuine future, if only the "grand designers" from SANZAR didn't try to take on too much. My comments above were mainly just some thoughts about the SANZAR competition in general, the tension that must be balanced between those who understandingly wish to grow this game at a global level and the needs and desires of those who have Australian Rugby interests at heart. Personally I have no skin in that game beyond a distant observation of an interesting conundrum for a world sports industry whose growth is very much in a state of flux. I think the wiki page is fine, albeit I would think the SANZAR page is just a little simpler and cleaner in how it presents its tables......perhaps that's just a personal preference. 118.211.49.254 (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, the comments above were unrelated, moved to a separate section now. TheMightyPeanut (talk)