Talk:2009 British & Irish Lions tour to South Africa

Home Union
Why are there links to the national sides in the tables when the heading clearly states Home union. This makes no sense, especially when there are and will be players listed who have not played for the national side they are linked to but are affiliated with a union. --Bob (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Squad section
I've reverted to a single table listing every player selected, with notes explaining their circumstances. I can't see much point to having a 'current squad' list which will change all the time. Wikipedia is not a news service. After the tour this would just reflect those players left standing at the end. IMO, we should have one squad list - separating the squad into 'current players' and 'withdrawals' is unnecessary commentary. --hippo43 (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags
Is there any particular reason why the IRFU isn't used against the players from Ireland rather than leaving them flagless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatgonzo (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the IRFU flag is copyrighted (or rather it incorporates the IRFU logo, which is copyrighted, making the flag a derivative work). Sorry. – PeeJay 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the Irish Flag? Cargoking   talk  10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The flag of the Republic of Ireland, to which I assume you refer, only applies to the Republic of Ireland. Since the Irish rugby team represents the island of Ireland as a whole, to use the flag of the Republic would be completely inappropriate. – PeeJay 13:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Team lists
I've reverted to a smaller team list format for the 1st Test. To me, the layout with vertical lists with a giant field diagram in the middle was a breach of WP:NPOV, in that it gave undue weight to the teams for this game. It took up almost the entire page view in my browser, and had as much space as four of the other games. The article has to proportionately reflect coverage in reliable sources, and it clearly didn't in this case. Why such a focus on Tests over the non-international games? I don't believe this emphasis is reflected in the sources. Moreover, the article will become very ugly and unwieldy if we end up with three of these lists for the Tests. I'm interested in what others think. --hippo43 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is more of a focus on the Test matches because they are Test matches. By definition, they carry more weight than the tour matches, and therefore more detail should be given for those matches. Further detail will be given once the match is played, with regard to substitutions and yellow/red cards (if any are given). – PeeJay 22:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with PeeJay, the Tests are heavily weighted in comparison to the invitational and regional games. I understand that some people dislike the graphics heavy style, but I would keep as is. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too, there's nothing wrong in putting more emphasis on tests. Tests matches are more important than midweek games, keep as is. Saebhiar Adishatz 04:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree with the majority here, although I think the image with its tiny pizelated names is awful. But that goes with the template, I suppose. HornetMike (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As creator of the line-up graphic, I don't see anything wrong with having the image there, although I do agree with you that the names could show up better. I'll try increasing the size of the image to 350px width. – PeeJay 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (reset ident) Just to clarify, I'm not against the image, just the way it looked at that point! It looks better with larger text. HornetMike (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Article improvements?
Been observing the article develop over the last month or so and a few things spring to mind: Right, that's it, sorry that I haven't actually got stuck into the article but am suggesting major changes. Unfortunately I don't have time to make major edits all that frequently, and stuff like this should be mooted on the talk page first anyway. Right, discuss... HornetMike (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the history of tours to South Africa is there (both prose and the chart). It's not relevant to the tour, and should be in a separate article. If this was the case, then a small section of prose could be added to the top of the article explaining briefly the history of the Lions in SA with a link to the article.
 * I don't like the new notes section in the squad list, it's merely repeating what's said in the prose above it. What I might do is add footnotes next to names using the  tag. 1: Pre-tour drop-out 2: Pre-tour replacement, 3: On tour drop-out, 4: On tour replacement etc. I'd also add a date of travel to the prose at the top of the section. Furthermore, I'd consider adding an age column - I don't think there's an age template that one can enter a DOB and a selected date and come up with an age (if not, there really should be, it'd be good for all tour/tournament squad lists). However, you could work out the age at the date of departure, say, and mention that in a footnote.
 * I don't understand why there's a separate try table in the statistics section when the information is included in points scorers. I'd drop the try table and include three sets of columns for tries/pen/con/drop/total with a row-span above each set - "Non-test" "Test" and "Overall". Hopefully one could cut the column width enough - obviously if you couldn't it wouldn't be feasible - by using the above abbreviations and adding a key at the top. And try to make that sortable. I'd also suggest doing an appearances list for the Lions, possibly in the squad list, listing their number of non-Test and Test appearances, also perhaps differentiating between starts and sub appearances.
 * I also thinks it unnecessary mentioning every single member of the backroom staff. I'd simply mention there are 23 members above the table (as it does presently) and then cut the table down to the tour manager and the coaching team, perhaps adding a column for their careers outside the Lions E.g. "London Wasps Director of Rugby (until May 2009)"
 * And finally to up the prose if possible.

I've been playing around with the stats list, and here's how it could look (will remove at a later date to stop clutter). Think it looks alright, no idea how to make it sortable though: HornetMike (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hornet, re your points above -
 * 1 I agree. Link to another article with a brief summary of the history. No need for a table here.
 * 2 I think a table for the squad is the way to go. It makes sense to have a list of all the players involved, and the notes section explains any anomalies better than footnotes. I think the prose above listing every injury and date is superfluous. Perhaps include dates in the Notes section of the table but there is no need to list all the minutiae of injuries when the article doesn't include any prose on, say, the games themselves. If readers want to know about Leigh Halfpenny's thigh, then the Leigh Halfpenny article can explain it thoroughly.
 * 3 On the question of tries/points, I'm not really too fussed either way - one table is probably preferable. For appearacnes, maybe a column in the squad list with the number of appearances. However, I'd be wary of putting too many stats in. The coverage in reliable sources is overwhelmingly prose, not lists of appearances as a starter or a sub. Who really cares how many times Lee Mears came on as a sub?
 * 4 Agree re non-playing staff. IMO, cut out everyone in the list below James Robson. I wouldn't bother with much more info on them - they have their own articles. Maybe a very brief comment for each of the coaches.
 * 5 Not sure what you mean by "up the prose". If you mean "include more prose about the events of the tour" then I agree. --hippo43 (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistics
Key
 * Con: Conversions
 * Pen: Penalties
 * Drop: Drop goals

First Test Pitch
The pitch thing in the first test Fixture section looks really ugly, and hard to read in my opinion. I'm going to be bold and remove it. I have also noticed that it is not in any of the past tours. Alan16 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is not there for past tours is not a good reason to remove it. Also, it is indeed your opinion that it is hard to read. Finally, line-up graphics were created for the 2007 Rugby World Cup matches, so I see no reason why the Lions tour shouldn't have them. Therefore, I too have been bold and restored the graphic. – PeeJay 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well what we really need is more users opinions, to reach a consensus. And it isn't that I think it is less important than the World Cup or anything, I just think the writing is too small on the names, and the whole thing just looks quite amateurish and badly drawn - as if someone has just drawn it on Microsoft Paint. Alan16 (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you, the graphic was made in Inkscape, I just didn't believe that any particular details were necessary on the kits. You are right, though, that the text looks a bit rubbish. I'm not sure why it's rendering badly, but I'll see what I can do to remedy it. – PeeJay 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have increased the text size by another 2pt, so it should be easier to read now. Still not perfect, but I can't make it much bigger without ruining the template, as it might cause problems for players with long names to have the text too big. – PeeJay 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alan. It's hideous. It doesn't reflect what is in the sources. There's nothing wrong with a team list - the graphic adds very little in terms of clarity, and is so ugly that it detracts from the article. I support binning it. --hippo43 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that one. While it may not be a sight to behold, it's certainly not "ugly", and if it were to be removed, it is likely that some people would wonder why it's not there. It is possible that I may be able to completely re-vamp the template to make the graphic slightly more representative of a rugby line-up, but IIRC the players were laid out in this way as that was the best way to fit them all on the page. I'll upload my results in a moment for you to have a look at. – PeeJay 23:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How's that then? The players should now be in a recognisable "formation", and unless you are practically blind, the text is legible. – PeeJay 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PeeJay, the improvements are just that, improvements. However, I still don't think there is a point to it - as Hippo basically said, what does it add to the article apart from an ugly (sorry, but I think it is ugly) green rectangle? Alan16 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort PJ, but it's still very ugly, and adds nothing to the article, except for people who don't know how a rugby team lines up. This isn't the article for that. --hippo43 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to make things awkward and say that I like the graphic, and think the page will look fine when all three tests are done. It's a nice quick reference point to see which players line up along which, no it isn't strictly necessary, but no more necessary than a table displaying all the points scorers. The 2008 Tri Nations uses a similar graphic - although the page has been edited as of the time of this post and looks horrendous, but did look fine before. If we are actually going to remove the graphic, find a way to not leave a big empty white space in between the player lineup, as that would be far worse. Swiss09 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also like the pitch graphics. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PeeJay - The pitch looks fine they way it is. Keep up the good work. (Jonathanburger (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree, the pitch graphic adds value to the article, and is useful. Thanks PeeJay. I suggest the font needs some work though, it renders quite poorly. Perhaps a different font altogether, if this one can't be made any bigger? Greenman (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has explained what it adds to the article. How does this improve things? The negatives are obvious. It is illegible, ugly, and duplicates the information in the team lists. Moreover, it dominates the article and gives undue weight to the info for these games. Why are the teams for the tests listed twice and the teams for the other games not listed at all? This does not reflect the coverage of theses games in reliable sources, therefore goes against WP:NPOV. Either teams should be listed for all games, as they are in every credible publication which covers the tour, or not at all. --hippo43 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The modern Lions tours nowadays put greater importance on the three tests than any of the other games against provincial sides. Most sources such as the BBC, Skysports and Supersport put far more emphasis on the full tests and give more coverage of those matches, often referring the the provincial games as "warm ups".  Previous tours are also judged almost explicitly on the results of the test matches, rather than the non-test provincial games.  As far as your negatives go, "illegible" and "ugly" are just your opinion, which I don't agree with.  You have a point insofar as the graphic is technically redundant, but it still makes a useful visual reference point (e.g. which players are playing opposite which without having to work it out every time via the team lists). --Swiss09 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course "ugly" and "illegible" are my opinion (and also the opinions of others). However, are you honestly saying that it is attractive? And easy to read? Would serious publications print a diagram in so small a font?


 * As for sources, there has been a huge amount of coverage of the non-test games on this tour. Coverage of previous tours isn't really relevant to this article. I agree that sources give more coverage to the tests, and the article should reflect that in the amount of prose that is used to report on the games. However, every newspaper of record or serious broadcaster has published team lists for every game, with more or less equal prominence. Why should this article have the team lists printed twice, and for only some games?


 * To work out who is playing against who, maybe just look across from one team list to the other? It really isn't complicated to "work it out". If that's the best argument for keeping the ugly diagram, it's not very impressive. --hippo43 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So far I've seen two people argue against it. I think you know what I mean by having a visual reference, please try to refrain from being pedantic.Swiss09 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by my "being pedantic" - you wrote "it still makes a useful visual reference point (e.g. which players are playing opposite which without having to work it out every time via the team lists)." If you mean something else, can you explain what? --hippo43 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hippo - if seeing who is playing against who is the only reason for keeping it, then it shouldn't be kept. As Hippo said, you can look across the team lists. And since when has rugby been a one-on-one game? Rugby is a team game. Alan16 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that rugby is a one-on-one game. However, like football, there are often mini-battles between individuals/groups of individuals during the match. If the graphic helps even one person, then it's served its purpose and it should stay. – PeeJay 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry PeeJay, that logic is nonsense. Helping one person (or a tiny minority) is not the barrier for inclusion, much less for inserting a graphic that dominates the page and dwarves all the other games - if it were, all kinds of trivia or tangential stuff would be acceptable. I could add 'Lee Mears is a committed christian', or whatever, to the article and this would no doubt be of interest to at least one person. More importantly, your logic would support including team lists and diagrams for every game. --hippo43 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is that adding info specifically about Lee Mears to this article would not be appropriate. These line-up images are appropriate, as they pertain directly to the matches that have been played, which is the very crux of the tour. Regardless, you and Alan are currently in the minority. – PeeJay 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Myself, I like the information as it gives me two sets of information that can easily be accessed. The teams are listed in position on the graphics, that allows me to understand the team layouts easily, which the short-hand positions on the player list do not achieve (unless you have a very good knowledge of RU, which very few people have). While the player list gives me subsitution times. This gives me an great overview of the game. Also, I haven't seen a counter argument being used on he World Cup 2006 final page, which also uses the same 'ugly' graphics, without any discussion, and football needs far less understanding of positional setup. Although another page not being discussed is not a basis for this article being questioned, it does feel like there is undue attention to rugby union articles. I would also like to reiterate the Test vs. invitational and regional games, as the Test games are of far heavy weight than the other matches. The Lions could win all the regional games, but if they lost the Tests the tour is a failure. Therefore the Tests are of utmost importance. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PeeJay, you're right, we do appear to be in the minority, at least for now. However, wikipedia is not a democracy, and there are policies to consider. As far as I can see the relevant policies clearly support my view. I haven't yet seen any serious argument to counter this. Again, why would every game not have team lists included?


 * Fruit, I agree the Tests are more important - that's not really in doubt. However, this does not explain why the Tests should have both a long team list which takes up a lot of space, and an ugly illegible graphic which dominates the article, while the non-test games have no team lists at all. There is no good reason for this, and it is obviously contrary to WP:NPOV, as it does not reflect the proportion of coverage in the sources. Can you address this problem? So far the arguments in favour of the graphic have been very poor. You are right that other articles aren't really relevant to this. --hippo43 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no response here on the issue of policy, I've removed these graphics, in line with WP:NPOV. As well as giving undue weight to the lineups, they are not accurate diagrams of how any rugby team I've ever seen lines up. --hippo43 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no policy issue here. The info is more heavily weighted towards the Test matches because they are more important, hence the lineup images are perfectly warranted. Next you're going to tell me that you want the lineup images removed from 2007 Rugby World Cup knockout stage because we don't include them in the Magners League articles. Ludicrous! Oh, and for an example of that diagrammatical representation of the teams, have a look at the very first image in Rugby union positions. – PeeJay 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy issue is obvious - this article must reflect the coverage given by reliable sources. As stated above, every reliable news outlet has listed the teams for every game, not just the tests. To list the teams twice for the tests is ridiculous. Your view on the importance of the tests and the inclusion of graphics is just not supported by sources.


 * This isn't the place for discussing those articles, but 2007 Rugby World Cup knockout stage is one of the ugliest articles I've seen. The graphics are hideous and it's covered in unnecessary flags - I counted 13 South African flags in varying sizes! The graphic in Rugby union positions is also inaccurate, so I'm not sure what your point is. At least that graphic does not have a rugby pitch background on it, so it's less misleading than the graphics you want to include here. Pointing out other articles which support our view will get us nowhere - both of us can easily do that. --hippo43 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest we leave things as they are. I could see the argument for adding the line-ups for the other matches, but it would have to at least look professional, not just a string of players' names as one editor tried to add a couple of weeks ago. – PeeJay 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, truce. I don't have an inherent objection to including graphics. I agree that they can provide variety, and a visual alternative to a dry list format. However, there are some fairly self-evident conditions that they have to meet to be valuable -
 * They should be clearly legible, otherwise they're pointless.
 * They should be accurate, in the sense that the layout of players should match how a rugby team would actually be lined up.
 * They shouldn't dominate the article because of their size. The large size of your graphics gives undue weight within this article to the test lineups, over all the other important information in it.
 * They shouldn't be used arbitrarily for some games (i.e. Tests) and not others. That isn't consistent with how the tour has been reported in the sources.


 * So I'd support including them if they were smaller, legible, accurate and used for all games. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to be possible. If we included team lists and even small graphics for every game, the article would be dominated by lists and diagrams, and would include hardly any prose. I don't really think that's the answer, though I'm open to other suggestions. --hippo43 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The size of the diagrams was chosen to make them more legible, so making them smaller would actually be counter-productive. Furthermore, the graphics are about the same height as the player lists, so that they fit within the space available. So, what arrangement of the players would you suggest for the graphics then? I notice that you're quick to criticise, but you're not actually suggesting any methods of compromise. – PeeJay 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a good compromise which would meet the points I listed above, that's really my point. The graphics would have to be so big to be legible and accurate that I don't really think they're worth having. Having 22+ lines of text taken up by team lists and big diagrams is not a good use of space - it means the article is visually dominated by these lineups and graphics, and gives a huge amount of weight to this info. I'm open to suggestions but not sure we can resolve that problem. That I haven't suggested a compromise doesn't mean the problems I've pointed out don't exist. The solution I've implemented in the article is having the teams listed, so keeping the information, and using four columns to minimise the impact of this material.
 * To me, the extra value provided by the visual depiction of the teams is not worth the cost to the article's quality. --hippo43 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realise that several people above you actually believe that the line-up graphics actually add to the article's quality, right? And of course it's only your opinion that the article is becoming "visually dominated" by the graphics. – PeeJay 09:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Team images
Is incorrect SA give their blindside flanker the number 7 and their openside 6 Burger is actually an openside, do the research if you don't believe me. Juan Smith is the blindside for the Boks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.209.35 (talk • contribs)
 * Are you sure about that? Got a source? – PeeJay 12:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stats tables?
Does someone know of a format for a statistics table like lineouts won, missed tackles, penalties conceded etc...? Please add it! --41.145.67.219 (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think such detailed stats can be found on the interweb, and even if they could, I'm not sure they're particularly encyclopaedic! – PeeJay 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am being bold and putting in something like I am suggesting. Comments/improvements...? --Sahmejil (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said above, I don't think it's particularly encyclopaedic. Nevertheless, if consensus approves of its addition, I would suggest that a separate section be created, as the tables you added looked (and I apologise for being terribly blunt) bloody awful where they were. For my suggestion for how the tables should look, have a look at 2007 Rugby World Cup Final. – PeeJay 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I considered rather putting the "headings" in the middle with the numbers for each team on either side, but that would make it a rather long vertical table, and I always feel it messes up the navigation, so I tried the horizontal one, which I don´t really think looks that bad - maybe needs a little formatting. Kinda gives you all the info at a glance without the need to scroll down.  The position in the article is of course totally debatable. Where do you suggest?--Sahmejil (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lions emblem/flag
It looks kind of weird with SA having a flag in the tables, while the Lions don´t. Why not use a scaled down version of the emblem as at the top of the page, since it is the representative symbol of the team, just like a flag would normally be? --Sahmejil (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that would be acceptable under Fair Use terms, since it would qualify as merely decorative. – PeeJay 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Media needed!
This article has no pictures! Please look out for some useable media and add it. Thanks! --Sahmejil (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted review of Emerging Springbok game
The article is incomplete without a review of this game.

It doesn't fit with the provincial games, since it wasn't played against a provincial team. It wasn't a true Test either, so that is why it was denoted as such whithin the text, and further indented in the contents box. It was also played during the "Test-phase" of the tour, so it makes chronological sense to put it between the reviews of the first and second Tests. To rename the paragraph to something more encompassing like "Important games" to include this game is also just silly.

I propose it is kept as it was here [].
 * Along with the tests
 * but clearly noted as not a test

Alternatively a modified structure of the article can be proposed, but like I said at the start of this comment - the article is poorer and incomplete without a review of the only drawn game of the tour somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahmejil (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your change. Unless someone supplies good reviews of all the games, this midweek game doesn't belong among the tests, or deserve its own review more than other games. The tour was not split into phases - there was no 'test phase'. You are making an assumption that it was more important than other non-Test games - you could equally argue that the Royal XV game was less important than the Sharks game, or the Southern Spears game less significant than the Western Province game etc...
 * --hippo43 (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above comment. Historically rugby tours (of which the Lions tour is essentially the last survivor) divided into "tests" and "tour games". The "tour games" can encompass all manner of fixtures - for tours of Britain for example games were played against individual clubs, regional teams, university teams, armed forces teams and in some cases, national second-tier teams. I don't think there is any suggestion that any of these games were more, or less, important than any other non-test fixture. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with having a review of the Emerging Springboks game, but as Hippo says, only if there are equivalent reviews of the other matches. The fact that it was the only drawn game is neither here nor there.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very set on having the review. I just don't think to remove it because the reviews of the other tests are shorter/incomplete is a very good reason. The game wasn't really on par with the other provincial games either. A team made of players from all over the country is actually a bit more like a test than it is like a provincial match, although I do agree it was not a test and shouldn't be regarded as such and I dont think the paragraph makes any comparison about the importance of any games. It is just a short, succinct, informal review of an exciting match on tour. Much like the paragraph in the lead that talks about "the highlight of the tour...the second test". If there's consensus to remove it, that's fine, but I think it would be a better strategy to rather improve the other reviews Sahmejil (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree with that last point - it'd be good to have review of all the games. Whether anyone has the time/inclination to do so, who knows. I don't fancy picking up the talk myself, more a historian than a reporter!--Bcp67 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So is the consensus then that the article is better without any form of review of this match? In a way I can understand the feeling that the review is slightly unnecesary (in the light of very short and in my mind incomplete reviews of the Test matches), but isn't that an unescapable part of a work in progress like most articles?  -  So in short - I don't agree that the removal actually improves the article, but would like to hear what the consensus is. Sahmejil (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Succession box / template
Do we need a succession box and a template of Lions tours on this article? Seems like a bit of overkill to me.--Bcp67 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be. The question seems to be about deciding between the succession box, lions tour template and the references in the lead that refer to preceding and succeeding tours. -  My vote is for the sentence near the top of the lead that link to the previous/next tour (as in other tours) and the template of lions tour at the end. Sahmejil (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the succession box, it's pointless. --hippo43 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103124005/http://www.skysports.com/rugbyunion/match_commentary/0,20244,11069_34226_1,00.html to http://www.skysports.com/rugbyunion/match_commentary/0,20244,11069_34226_1,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701083757/http://www.rte.ie:80/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0628/bothab.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0628/bothab.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5j68hO7LE?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planetrugby.com%2Flions-09%2Fstory%2F0%2C25883%2C3819_5489824%2C00.html to http://www.planetrugby.com/lions-09/story/0,25883,3819_5489824,00.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5j68i4CK2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walesonline.co.uk%2Frugbynation%2Frugby-news%2F2009%2F08%2F14%2Fbakkies-botha-hit-was-just-one-of-those-things-says-adam-jones-91466-24438634%2F to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2009/08/14/bakkies-botha-hit-was-just-one-of-those-things-says-adam-jones-91466-24438634/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5iVy1Vmfs?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lions-tour.com%2Fthe_lions%2Fthe_management.asp to http://www.lions-tour.com/the_lions/the_management.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160122021818/http://www.sarugby.net/component/supersportcontent/6804?view=news to http://www.sarugby.net/component/supersportcontent/6804?view=news
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skysports.com/rugbyunion/match_commentary/0%2C20244%2C11069_34226_1%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630234342/http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0628/secondtest_conoroshea.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0628/secondtest_conoroshea.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10582262
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ofm.co.za/sport.asp?nid=5046
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-06-30-saru-de-villiers-apologise-for-eyegouging-comments
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704020558/http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0701/odriscollb.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0701/odriscollb.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0628/bothab.html
 * Added tag to http://sports.sg.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3434755.
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planetrugby.com/lions-09/story/0%2C25883%2C3819_5489824%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynation/rugby-news/2009/08/14/bakkies-botha-hit-was-just-one-of-those-things-says-adam-jones-91466-24438634/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919160520/http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data%2Fsports%2F2009%2FJuly%2Fsports_July122.xml&section=sports to http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data%2Fsports%2F2009%2FJuly%2Fsports_July122.xml&section=sports
 * Added tag to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0704/shaw.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706083527/http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0704/lions1.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0704/lions1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707013751/http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0704/lions2.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0704/lions2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lionsrugby.com/thetour/8333.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725134727/http://www.sareferees.co.za/sarefs/appointments/1646141.htm to http://www.sareferees.co.za/sarefs/appointments/1646141.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lions-tour.com/the-lions/the-management-2/the-management/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624040909/http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0620/conor_oshea.html to http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0620/conor_oshea.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5iVxulKH2?url=http://www.lionsrugby.com/thetour/8333.php to http://www.lionsrugby.com/thetour/8333.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)