Talk:Dragons RFC

Rugby union Mid‑importance

	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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

Gwent has a gap in the large spectator sports team market. Newport Gwent Dragons were perceived as the way to capture a naturally large rugby watching audience but in truth, Newport Rugby Football Club 1999-2004 were more successful at doing that than the Newport Gwent Dragons have ever been. However, any successful spectator sport franchise (Chelsea FC included) need financial support far beyond the means of ticket and merchandise income and the Newport Gwent Dragons are suffering with insufficiant funds to seriously challenge for the Celtic League and Heineken Cup competitions.

1999-2004? you mean 2002-2003. in 1999-2000 the average attendance was just over 1000. see citation 5 in the main article.

Misleading[edit]

In the controvesy section the article compares attendence from Newport RFC and the Dragons and concludes that 'The Club' has lost support. This is misleading in the extreme. This implies that Newport RFC and the Dragons are the same entity when in fact they are nothing of the sort.

This paragraph could (and IMHO should) be reworded to reflect that the old Newport RFC had better attendences than the 'New Regional team the Newport Gwent Dragons'. The distinction should be clear. Adam777

A couple of citations should be added to the controvery section. Any rugby fan in Wales can attest to the two issues I highlighted but anyone without familiarity to the issue could use some citations. With that addition and a disctinction made between the Newport RFC of old and the current Regional team then I think most of the NPOV issues would be resolved. Adam777 14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy.[edit]

much of this article, and the controversy section especially, is opinion, rather than fact. As an example, it is stated that rodney parade will shortly face serious health and safety issues. really? is there anything at all to substantiate that? or is it just opinion? and if so, whose? by the admission of the cited article (citation 5), the attendance at Rodney Parade was only just over a thousand in 1999/2000, so is a one off season average of 8,302 relevant?

This article is a mess. a misleading mess. Nickparlow 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have done my best to improve the neutrality a little bit. There was a huge Newport bias in this section, which I hope I have removed. Shenko316 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Newport gwent dragons badge.png[edit]

Image:Newport gwent dragons badge.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squad[edit]

Could someone look at the squad and adjust it to size since there are players there that aren't in the Magners League squad for NGD

Abbreviation[edit]

One of the things we try to achieve in Wikipedia is consistency, i.e the organization and presentation of information uniformly across articles.

I've noticed recently that some anon ISPs have been changing the abbreviation of the team name in players' infoboxes from NG Dragons to Newport GD. In my view this is being done for partisan reasons, not for the enlightenment of readers, and has led to an inconsistency of style.

I am well aware of the controversy surrounding the original name of the team and I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but since the team represents the entire Gwent region I feel the original abbreviation (NG Dragons) was not only clear, but impartial. I recently had to explain to an English sports journalist the difference between Newport and the Newport Gwent Dragons. If a sports journalist is confused what hope is there for the general reader? We should try to be as clear as possible and Newport GD only serves to obfuscate. I propose that when abbreviated the side should always be referred to as NG Dragons.Thoughts? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dragons (rugby union). 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Dragons RFC.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]