Talk:Hurricanes (rugby union)

New
Hope people like it ... otherwise...whatever its my first real article so.--ET has the passion of 1000 suns 08:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, great stuff. Both the Hurricanes and Crusaders articles have set the S14 benchmark on wikipedia. Great stuff. Narrasawa 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Name change
This article's name really needs to be changed to The Hurricanes, as the team ceased to be known as the "Wellington Hurricanes" a number of years ago. Unfortunately I don't know how to do it, can someone help? Willnz0 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Move
Found at Talk:Blues (rugby team)-- HamedogTalk|@ 13:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That discussion was closed, and it was decided that these various page moves should be discussed separately. Those interested may wish to relist this page as an individual move request. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose page move, I'd say more people searching for "hurricanes" want tropical cyclone. Majority of the links to hurricanes also refer to tropical cyclones. – Chacor 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. There seem to be too many other uses of "Hurricanes". -GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Hurricanes (Super rugby franchise) → Hurricanes — Allows the team to be under its proper name. Hurricanes redirects to Tropical Cyclone and if somebody was looking for information about tropical cyclones by typing Hurricanes, a banner at the top of the page would inform a reader of this. -- HamedogTalk|@ 06:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) This should be done so the Hurricanes can get there proper name like the Crusaders. The redirect to Tropical cyclone is no issue as a header at the top can inform readers of looking for information on the weather of its correct location. It solves the issue of the ugly bracked name, maximizes traffic to the team and has little or no effect on tropical cyclone.-- HamedogTalk|@ 08:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support They deserve it anywayz I dont know anywhere else that the word Hurricanes is used instead of redirecting to Tropical cyclones so Why Not..!!!--Cometstyles 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)P.S Just Becoz Rugby isnt a Big name in the USA Doesnt make it unimportant and if Iam correct then more people Watch and Play rugby compared to any Other American sport period..--Cometstyles 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but because Miami Hurricanes (football) and Carolina Hurricanes (hockey) aren't big in United Kingdom doesn't mean they're unimportant (actually, American football probably has a leg up on rugby football, though certainly not soccer; not like it matters). Patstuarttalk 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Only Becoz of the Money..American Football players are paid in Millions of Dollars whereas Rugby players are paid in Thousands of Dollars and if it was the other way around..Things would be different.ø~Cometstyles~ø  (talk)|undefined
 * Um, college football players are paid zilch. Patstuarttalk 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whose talking about College Football(they are there 2 study ..Not make money)..I'am talking Professional--Cometstyles 06:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If American Football has a leg up on rugby union, where is the american football world cup? Oh wait you just have a super bowl? And thats every year? The 2007 Rugby World Cup will be the third biggests sporting event (after the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics) which makes it, in all likely hood, a larger sport the Gridiron.-- HamedogTalk|@ 21:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Oppose primary meaning is the weather phenomena - leave as redirect. -- Beardo 08:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Beardo, and as confirmed in any English dictionary.--Endroit 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, having the plural redirect to the singular is common practice where that article is by far the primary topic, like Hurricane is. Recury 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The team is clearly less well-known and named after the natural event, which is clearly the predominant use.  Anyone entering "hurricanes" is much more likely to be looking for the natural event than a rugby team.  --Serge 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Primary usage is the weather phenomenon. And Hamedog's rationale cuts both ways: a banner at the top of Tropical cyclone states ""Hurricane" and "Typhoon" redirect here. For other uses, see Hurricane (disambiguation) and Typhoon (disambiguation)." As for getting rid of the "ugly" brackets: I don't see that as a valid reason for making a particular article the primary one when it doesn't even come close to being the primary topic. --  SigPig  |SEND - OVER 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the banner on the Crusaders article. I am suggesting something like that.-- HamedogTalk|@ 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose too confusing with the weather hurricane or even Miami Hurricanes and Carolina Hurricanes. Though for this page, I would suggest as an alternate title Hurricane (rugby). 205.157.110.11 02:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Miami and Carolina have a place/city in there name - this does not occur with the rugby team, simply known as the "Hurricanes".-- HamedogTalk|@ 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose - when people type in the wikilink hurricanes, they will not expect it to go to a rugby franchise, but to the page hurricane. Patstuarttalk 09:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they would expect it to redirect to Tropical cyclone (if it was to redirect) rather than hurricane (which would result in a double redirect!!!).-- HamedogTalk|@ 10:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Same thing. Patstuarttalk 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Wow... Too many other sports teams called Hurricanes, not to mention the weather phenonema. Didn't we already vote on this once? Oh wait, that was on the Chiefs talk page. --Bobblehead 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * This article is ranked "top importance" by WP:RU and the team is one of the best teams in the Super 14. These are strong reasons why the page should be moved IMO.-- HamedogTalk|@ 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The real qwuestion is, is someone typing this looking for the rugby team or did they mean to type the word hurricane and would actaully be trying to reach the tropical cyclone article?Personally, I think the second option is the more likely. Also I don't think that an opinion of a specialized group that is clearly connected to the article in question is a good indication of overall importance due to the fact that there would likely be a clear preference for related articles as there would be for any other union. Finally, I don't believe that the teams performance has any relevelence to whether or not hurricanes should be the title of this artilce or redirect to tropical cyclones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.76.78 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Performance does have relevance. Somebody is more likely to look for the Hurricanes than say, the Western Force (who came last in 06) because of their recent performances.-- HamedogTalk|@ 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And someone is more likely to be looking for the weather phenomenon than the rugby team. -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, why can't this article be like the Crusaders?-- HamedogTalk|@ 21:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Better question is, "Why can't the Crusaders be like this article?" So far you have not come up with a good reason for the move. Just because a particular WikiProject ranks it "top importance" only means that it is of top importance to those participants in the project, not necessarily anyone else in Wikipedia. The weather phenomenon is the primary usage; that trumps whether or not the titles all match up or that brackets look ugly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SigPig (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes but the weather phenomenon is a "hurricane" or "tropical cyclone" - notice the singular usage, not plurals. Hurricanes is a "sub-redirect" - its a redirect for a redirect (as in if the article was a hurricane, hurricanes would still redirect). One good reason for the move? A notable rugby union team that plays in a multi-nation competition which is played in more than one continent. The Super 14 is one of SANZAR's two "cash cows" and is shown Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, Ireland, Nth America, France, Italy, Argentina, Japan and many other nations. The Hurricanes are very well known in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa as well as the United Kingdom, Ireland and France were there are many ex-pats from the first three mentioned countries. The popularity in Ireland, France and the UK can be seen in the fact that the Stormers will host a regular season match against the Crusaders in London in 2008.

The Super 14 is the TOP level of rugby union in the Southern Hemisphere (excluding Internationals).-- HamedogTalk|@ 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the Wikipedia, NOT the Rugby-pedia nor the Hamedog-pedia. Rugby teams are less important here.--Endroit 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rugby is a disambigous page, what sport do you mean? Rugby league or rugby union? And besides it's simply "Wikipedia" not "the Wikipedia":P Are you saying rugby [union] teams are less important or sporting teams are less important?-- HamedogTalk|@ 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go, Rugby is a disambiguation page, proving that Rugby football is not so important in Wikipedia. Actually if you proposed moving Rugby → Rugby (disambiguation) and Rugby football → Rugby, I shall support it.  Please read WP:DAB carefully, on how these things are supposed to be determined.--Endroit 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I will bring it up on both WP:RU and WP:RL as well as WP:RUGBY because it comes under those three WikiProjects.-- HamedogTalk|@ 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maps
Maps of the franchise encachment areas would enhance the article. Chainz 09:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - Shudda talk  05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seperate History page
Hoping to move to Hurricanes history, results & achievements to a separate page at History of the Hurricanes, as has been done with the Highlanders, so as to add to the Hurricanes franchise template at Template:hcanes. I've put the current history, plus a sortable version of the results table at User:Gialloneri/Test (correct as of 6 June 08). It would need an introduction, and a shorter history blurb for the main page. Sound like a good idea, or leave as is? If so, would anyone like to contribute? (feel free to edit the aforementioned test page) Otherwise I'll get around to it...eventually :P Gialloneri (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Away strip controversy"
I've removed this section as I feel it's un-encyclopaedic, poorly written and poorly thought out.

There is some merit (the connection to Cardiff, no sub-union uses grey, no other team uses yellow) however on the whole it's poorly written, poorly thought out, poorly spelt and basically looks like something that you'd see on a message board than in an encyclopaedia.

Even if this were fixed, there's no (active) source on there being a controversy.

That being said, as a Hurricanes fan, I'm not impressed with the grey either, and if someone were to provide a source and a well-written section, I wouldn't complain ;-) Gialloneri (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crusaders (rugby) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Team split
Will there be any consideration or discussion in the future about splitting the women's team from the main page?--Tamariki (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)