User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2013/June

2013 Lions Tour
Regarding recent edit. I understand what you are on about with too much information in the fixtures section, however if we keep consistency from past tours, then line-ups will be included for the matches against Australia. However, the Lions has never played the Barbarians before and thus consistency doesn't matter with this particular match. This means line-up can and should be included for the Lions v Barbarians match as well as the Australian matches. Rugby.change (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. In the 2009 article, only the test matches have all this trivia. In previous tours' articles, none of the games do. This was not a test match so there is no precedent for including this stuff, and you haven't made any argument for including it. Worse, you apparently don't know that the Lions played the Barbarians in 1977, and I can't see any article having all this stuff for that game. --hippo43 (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record I knew about that match, but this match is part of the tour. Further more, I have created a template that should be the best way to show line-ups. If we used this:

then line-ups can be collapsed in. However, the test matches would stay like it was in 2009. Do you agree? Rugby.change (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the article talk page, which is where we should discuss content. and if you knew about the 1977 game, why did you say they had never played before?? --hippo43 (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, lets continue the discussion about line-ups on the talk page. Rugby.change (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you view the new look article and express your opinion? Rugby.change (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you remove the 'Match 1, Match 2, 3, 4, etc column on the schedule table. It is hyperlinked to the fixtures further down the page and is easier for readers to navigate through the page. The new format table is good, I just think having a hyperlink column at the start makes it easier to navigate through the page from the table. Rugby.change (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I explained [|here] Because there's no such thing as 'Match 1' etc. Calling it Match 1 amounts to original research.
 * Also because it wasn't at all clear what those links linked to. Why would a reader click on a link to 'Match 1'?? Where would they think they were going? --hippo43 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest we could call it rather than 'Match 1'. Match stats or something. Details perhaps. Rugby.change (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care. It's not necessary. What you added is fine by me. --hippo43 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hippo, I'm not sure if you had seen my request on the Federer talk page before you made this edit, but either way... thank you very much. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mid-year rugby union tests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby Championship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Expected teams
Although those sources are slightly speculative, it's not like the speculators are just some mugs down the pub; the articles were written by the BBC's top rugby correspondent, someone who I would not hesitate to call a rugby expert. If it was a blog post, I'd understand your objections, but you'll find reputable sources all over the place stating that Roberts, Vunipola and Hibbard were all expected to make the starting XV for the first test. – PeeJay 20:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are sources speculating on who was most likely to make the team, by some very knowledgeable commentators. (Though there are also plenty of sources which tipped other players before the game.) What we would really need for this to be well-sourced would be multiple, good quality sources which said, after the team was announced but before the game, that the selections were surprising. There was no controversy - it's not like they picked anyone really weird.
 * But more importantly, who really cares? This is trivial, and is obvious recentism. Nobody will give a shit in a month. If selection has any impact on the series overall, there will be sources written in future which cover it, most likely in the pile of cash-in books which will follow. It's an encyclopedia, not the Daily Mail - I just don't think this should be in a short summary of the game. --hippo43 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)