Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team/Archive 3

The lead
I think we need to get the lead sorted out first, it currently reads like this: All Blacks is the name of New Zealand's national rugby union team. Rugby union is New Zealand's national sport and hence All Blacks selection is considered a high honour. The All Blacks are a formidable power in international rugby union, possessing a winning record against all rugby nations. As well as winning the Rugby World Cup in 1987 they have been Tri Nations champions seven times (in the 11 year history of the tournament) and have twice (in 1978 and in 2005) completed a Grand Slam (wins over England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland) tour of the Home nations. They are also current holders of the Bledisloe Cup, contested annually against Australia. They are currently the number-one ranked team in the world.[1]They are also the 2006 International Rugby Board (IRB) Team of the Year.[2] Their name dates from the first tour of the United Kingdom by a New Zealand national rugby team, the Originals, in 1905–1906. According to Billy Wallace, one of the members of the Originals, a London newspaper said the New Zealanders played as if they were "all backs". [3] Wallace claimed that due to a typographical error, subsequent references were to "All Blacks". This is likely myth however, as the name also describes their playing uniform of black shirts, shorts and socks.[3] Block quote From WP:LEAD, notably, it says The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. and...
 * In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
 * The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
 * A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.


 * Ideas/suggestions:
 * The section needs to be at least three paragraphs in my opinion
 * It could be broken up like this
 * First paragraph could be a general introduction (NZ national team, played since 1903, what they compete in etc etc)
 * Second could be an overview of All Blacks-specific notable information...They wear all black, the performance of the haka, the name...
 * Third could be why the are notable (winning record, ranking, hown many hall of famers etc)


 * The idea of relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article needs to be applied to the section on the name in the lead. Most of that info should be written in All_Blacks instead.
 * Also, there should not be such an emphasis on current events...The All Black are the current holders of this, this, winners of this etc...
 * What does everyone else think..? Cvene64 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of that however I don't think there is too much of an emphasis on current holders of what etc. The fact that they are IRB team of the year is very important, as is their rank and the fact that they hold the Bledisloe Cup. You may want to do the rewrite yourself Cvene64 as you have a good idea of how this should be written. - Shudda   talk  10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made alterations as per your suggestions. Could people please take a look at the Lead and give me some feedback. Thanks. - Shudda   talk  04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Squad
I've added the current squad section..

Someone might want to check its suitable and correct before it gets crossed off.. Alistairlp 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked it and added a reference. Also changed Autumn internations to November Tests as it's Spring in NZ when they take place (I think calling them the Autumn internationals is a bad idea on wikipedia). Good work for adding them though. - Shudda   talk  04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it something you are interested in for the english version, I did it for the french version.



Other players can also be mentionned below the figure. Dingy 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of problems with this. One is that it will need to be updated after every test. The next is that it doesn't give any information about their position and province. For non Rugby fans knowing the number will not be enough, having a wiki-link to their position gives them something to look up though. - Shudda   talk  22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * it does not have to be updated after each test, (in the French versin) it is completed by a list of other players who recently played test matchs (in november). A team is more than 15 players anyway, for example Piri Weepu is in the added list. As you have seen there are links for each players, so all information about the provinces ... can be found easily and are updated. Up to you, you could have both the present table and a typical team for test matchs. Dingy 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Featured Article
I have submitted All Blacks for FAC. You can read comments (and respond to them) here. - Shudda   talk  10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The All Blacks
This article has a lot of potential : congratulations to be a featured article... We try to make some featured articles in fr.wikipedia and we like your article. And we expect that fr:Équipe de Nouvelle-Zélande de rugby à XV will have the same result as Coupe du monde de rugby à XV or maybe fr:Tournoi des six nations. So, you can very proud about your contributions. Dd Dd 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1976 boycott
Should this article mention that several African countries boycotted the 1976 Olympic Games because the All Blacks played against South Africa? And more on the 1981 Springbok Tour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.98 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The problem with mentioning that is that this is really only an overview of All Blacks history. At some point, when I get time, I'll created the article All Blacks history. When that is created we can go into a lot more detail. There is a lot more info on both the 1976 Olympic Boycott and the 81 Tour in 1981 Springbok Tour. Which is linked in the article. Also, much of the 81 Tour stuff isn't just about the All Blacks, but also the provincial games (which falls outside the scope of this article). - Shudda   talk  21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name note
I think a note needs to be put at the top of this page explaining why this article is called All Blacks and not New Zealand national rugby union team. Buc 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? - Shudda   talk  21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's something people need to know. So they don't try to change it. Buc 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * GordyB 14:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If people start trying to move the page then you are definitely right that we should add a comment. However that edit war ended some time ago, and now that the article is FA, and a bit more stable, it probably won't happen again. If it does then someone should add the comment, but someone who would move a page without posting a question at the talk page is likely to ignore the comment anyway! - Shudda   talk  21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Blank ref
Reference number 90 is blank. Aaron Bowen 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it.- gadfium 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Country flags
I understand the All Blacks have several members born outside New Zealand but are the flags really nessecary in the squad section? It is a national team after all and everyone in the team has some kinda Allegiance to NZ. Also I doubt Jerry Collins and Joe Rokococo aren't NZ Citizens.-- HamedogTalk|@ 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a waste of time, and more importantly space. The article takes long enough to load up as it is (see WP:SIZE) so why make it worse with redundant images? Remove them I say. - Shudda   talk  07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Change colours
In the infobox there is a kit with grey shirts and grey socks. Have the All Blacks actually ever worn that kind of kit in a match? I don't see anything mentioned in the article. --Voyager 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what their current away strip is, but they have definitely worn a white, or off-white strip before. They do this when they are the away team against a country with very dark jerseys. This has happened against Scotland (when Scotland wore dark blue) before I think. - Shudda   talk  23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember the game, NZ wore white.GordyB 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been numerous occasions where New Zealand has used white instead of black due to the clash. NZ are yet to play in the grey kit, as they haven't played Scotland since its inception.-- HamedogTalk|@ 09:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there we go, All Blacks played their away kit vs Scottland...and what a mess up that was...would of been much clearer if they kept wearing Black. It was described by one commontator as Silver, which is a more appropriate colour for them then grey or white. Rekija 07:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rugby, the (quote) professional sport (end quote), where two international teams meet wearing the same (almost) jersey. And what about the (quote) professional referee (end quote) who didn't insist that Scotland wear their home jersey before they took the field because it was clear their would be confusion (and they were playing a home game via winning the toss). Professional my armpit. Moriori 08:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually they were playing as the away team because they won the toss (the home team wears their alternative strip in international rugby, shouldn't really call it an away strip). I must say that it wasn't always easy to distinguish the shirts, both teams are guilty though. - Shudde   talk  10:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering NZ only need to change strip when they play Scotland (AFAIK), you'd have thought that this would be an important consideration when chosing their change strip.GordyB 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole problem is because Scotland have those CCC panel things that are supposed to make them run faster, and the All Blacks had black panels on their shirts for some stupid reason. If Scotland had worn Blue and the All Blacks grey there would have been no problem but they both tried to be too fancy! - Shudde   talk  00:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But this is supposed to be a professional game. The teams should never have been allowed to take the field in those colours. Organisers must have been too busy counting the gate takings, and the ref was probably too frightend to make waves and jeopardise his chance of a finals adjudication. Sucks. Moriori 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They asked the ABs to change into their black strip at half time, see here. - Shudde   talk  01:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already read that. The problem was the ABs had nothing to change into. That farcical situation should never have arisen. Moriori 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand's national sport
"Rugby union is New Zealand's national sport"

Is rugby union really New Zealand's national sport? Is it New Zealand's official national sport? If so, this should have a citation. Otherwise, perhaps it would be better to say, "Rugby union is generally regarded as New Zealand's national sport". As a New Zealander, I can verify that rugby is definitely rammed down our throats more than any other sport, but I'm not sure that it is our 'official' sport. TallGuy 08:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the unofficial national sport but it would be silly to say it's not. If it isn't then what is? Netball, soccer, league? - Shudda   talk  23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase you're looking for is "de facto national sport". Mjefm 14:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Woods, Teenage?
Deleted a bit from "....in 1996, but went with the then teenage Tiger Woods instead." as the Tiger Woods article starts: "Eldrick "Tiger" Woods (born December 30, 1975)" meening he was 20 years old 2 days before 1996 started and not teenage. Maybe a bit picky I know but it is incorrect.

Carlwev 08:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Who owns it?
Could someone explains who owns this company, and how much profit they make from it?
 * it's not a company, but a organisation. no one profits.  The NZ Rugby Union is the technical 'owner', but it is a not for profit organisation

Little bit unbalanced?
Bad manner to criticise a FA on the day that it is featured, but a smidge POV to my eyes. The opening paragraph regaling All Black success completely glosses over the fact that they have only ever won a single world cup (and that was on home soil). By the time the article does get around to the world cup, it qualifies the defeat to SA in 1995 with "controversy surrounds the final with many suspecting the All Blacks were poisoned". I had never heard that allegation before (and a pretty serious allegation it is as well), and was slightly less than impressed to link to a "blog" as the sole supporting authority. I have huge respect for the Kiwi international rugby team, but this article perhaps hasn't been fully edited in the best traditions of Wikipedia balance.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought it was well balanced ... and must have been to have been reviewed and promoted to an FA. World Cup or no World Cup they are the most successful international rugby team in the world - why not include that initially? Maybe the world cup was neglected and their winning record accentuated but the article paints a fair picture. and yep they got poisoned ... http://www.rugby.com.au/news/all_blacks_poisoning_cover-up,9418.html Boomshanka 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, you may not have heard of the infamous "Suzie" poisoning the All Blacks, but it is indeed one of the most famous allegations in rugby. See this Google for "Suzie" "All Blacks" for numerous mentions of the (never proven) claim, from news outlets all over the world. --Stormie 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I think any New Zealander will certainly remember Suzie in 1995! As for World Cups, they are the only team to have qualified for every single semi-final. The problem with judging them simply by World cup success is that the World Cup only started in 1987, and they have been playing since 1884 (and Tests since 1903). Their Test record is probably more important then anything else, and if you look at things like Lions and Grand Slams, their record is pretty amazing. As well, many of the All Blacks most famous losses have been mentioned in the article, and that is certainly not POV; vs Wales in 1905, South Africa, France, and Australia in the RWC, England's win in 1935, the series loss to SA in 1937 and 1949, their series loss to the Lions in 1971, to Munster in 78, not to mention the unflattering history of the 81 tour and the Cavaliers. I don't think it is POV, losses are mentioned as well as win's. - Shudda   talk  23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There have only been five world cups so only having won once is not a big deal. That puts them on a par with South Africa and England and behind only Australia. In any case New Zealand have consistantly been either the best or the second best team (South Africa being the best though the All Blacks couldn't play non-whites in the Republic) up to that date. So it's very reasonable to call NZ one of the top sides.GordyB 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:DavidKirkRWC1987.jpg
I've removed this image, once again, from the article. It's claimed there is a "very good" fair use rationale. There isn't. There is a fair use rationale, but it does not in any way describe how it contributes significantly to this article, it just states "adds significantly to the article", not even WHICH article. This is not in compliance with policy (see WP:NFCC item #10(c). I did not remove this image without thought. Further, the image contributes virtually nothing to the article. The article spends just two sentences on the '87 cup, makes no mention of David Kirk's contribution, or any significance of any kind to him in particular holding the cup. We already know that from the two sentences. I.e., the image is purely decorative showing that they won the '87 cup. Thus, the image fails WP:NFCC item #8 "It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot". I'm sorry, but the use of this image simply isn't compliant. --Durin 12:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article request
User:Shudde has requested a spoken version of this article. I will start recording this within the next few days - possibly as early as this weekend if I have time. I may need to post requests for pronunciation help with some of the players' names here, so please help where you can! Thanks. Hassocks5489 07:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Narration uploaded and linked today - see the link above. Hassocks5489 18:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

2006 Grand Slam statement removed
The statement that the All Blacks achieved a Grand Slam in 2006 has been removed as it is incorrect. They did not play Ireland or Scotland in the 2006 end of year tests (although they did play Ireland earlier in the year). http://stats.allblacks.com/tourbreak.asp?IDID=167

At the time there were statements made that two tests against France, one against Wales and one against England were the equivalent or harder than a Grand Slam. The French tests however do not count towards a Grand Slam as was implied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HB one (talk • contribs)

The Blacks
How could anyone get a "play by Jean Genet, see The Blacks (play)" mixed up with 'All Blacks'? They're called totally different things. Why not put Blacks, or Black or the Black Album as well? I think it should either be removed or at least changed to a disambiguation. Boomshanka
 * I agree it doesn't seem to be necessary to have this link.- gadfium 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Created a disamb page at The Blacks so it has now been removed. Moriori 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language featured article
I see this is now a featured article in four languages, and it's the article of the week on the africaans language site! Nice. - Shudde   talk  06:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
The article is semi-protected now I think. It's been getting vandalised a lot, mainly by anon users. Regular contributors please be on the look out for this. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  00:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can anyone figure out how to removed the documentation things at the bottom of the article? I have no idea where they came from. - Shudde   talk  00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. If it's still there, could you explain in a bit more detail what you see.- gadfium  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's gone now. Very strange. - Shudde   talk  05:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be a template at the end of one of the included templates, which was supposed to be in a section but was briefly placed outside that section. I don't know which template it was, but it would have been a mistake rather than vandalism.- gadfium  06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I knew it was something like that. Didn't think it was vandalism (that was a separate issue). - Shudde   talk  06:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just applied for semi-protection (link). Would imagine the request will be accepted. Blair - Speak to me 02:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been semi-protected for two weeks. Blair - Speak to me 04:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title
Why is this article called "All Blacks"? Every other national rugby union team follows the same pattern, as does every other national football team, rugby league team, cricket team, etc., so why should the New Zealand national rugby union team be any different. I think I should submit this to WP:RM. – PeeJay 13:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See the earlier discussion at Talk:All Blacks/Archive 1.- gadfium 18:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing any reasons there that make me want to change my mind, tbh. – PeeJay 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well two simple reasons: (a) "All Blacks" is name that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" (as per Naming conventions), and (b) "All Blacks" is the official name of the team, trademarked by the New Zealand Rugby Union. The only reason we would name the article anything else is to achieve consistency of Wikipedia article names, which, while a desirable outcome when possible, is not the primary goal of our Naming Conventions policy. --Stormie 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Haka
I've made a few copy-edits in this section, but I think it needs more work. The quote attributed to Derek Lardelli appears nowhere in the referenced article and a couple of the other references are dead links. Also, saying that the final gesture "has been interpreted as" a throat-slitting is, I think, more NPOV than "appears to be". Jimmy Pitt (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both those things are correct. The new haka was definitely composed by Derek Lardelli, I'll try and find a link that's not dead. - Shudde   talk  19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't questioning that Lardelli was the composer, that's indisputable (I think!). And the views attributed to him in the quote may well be accurate; it's just that they're not mentioned in that particular article, which means the quote is unsourced. I should also mention that, before I edited it, the quote had no closing quote mark: I think it should be where I placed it but I could be wrong. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's fixed now. I found another ref with that quote. - Shudde   talk  20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * It was the All Blacks. I was there and took the photo. --Historian (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally all matches, including matches against clubs, Barbarians etc are listed on the site. It's very strange it's not there. It would be good to find an official record of it. - Shudde   talk  06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


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