Talk:All Blacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Good articles All Blacks has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Wikiproject Rugby union
 All Blacks is part of WikiProject Rugby union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Rugby union. If you would like to participate, you can edit All Blacks, or visit the project page, where you can join by adding your name to participants list.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for All Blacks:

 edit - history - watch - refresh

Pending tasks

  • Add references Very important
  • Expand history
  • Add more images
  • Break article into seperate pages, linking using {{main article}}
  • De-list notable players
  • Add section on All Blacks In New Zealand culture
  • Expand record sections
  • Improve Lead section (as per WP:LEAD)

Resources


/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] History section

I think we should try and make the history section more chronological. Just reading it, it jumps from the Sout African rivalry back to the 1880s and the development of a legacy. Allblacks91 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at doing some edits to it today I agree. It goes from talking about South Africa in 1921, 1937, 1956 and 1996 to talking about the 1888 tour by the British Isles in the next paragraph. I propose that the history section be rewritten in a more chronological manner. For someone unfamiliar with the All Blacks it would be terribly confusing as is. - Shudda talk 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

\ More info on the World XV matches would be good.

[edit] Some say that the All Blacks greatest opponent is their own legacy

Removed "Some say that the All Blacks greatest opponent is their own legacy." 'Some say' makes this statement inappropriate. If someone has a quote from someone notiible that says something similar, then by all means add it. Eg. 'Former All Black Joe Blogs once remarked that the All Black's greatest opponent is their legacy' (cited reference). But for now I think the statement should be removed. Shudda talk 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I must say I have seen/heard that saying numerous times. I think it definantly should be mentioned somewhere in the article, as the saying has been used in many books/DVDs and so on.Cvene64 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As Shudda says, this needs to be sourced. If it has been said so often, what are these "many books/DVDs and so on"?? Hippo43 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hippo, what I meant was that phrase (maybe not word-for-word) is suggested in some readings/media I have come across, but I could not tell you for sure, unless I found them again. For what it is worth, I found this googling:
I know for a fact that there is no opposition as intimidating as your opponent’s legacy. When you play against the All Blacks, you’re going up against a team that has a 74% win record over the past 104 years, the most sensational winning percentage in all of global sport. [1]

However it is pretty POV, but if referenced, I guess the article could reflect upon this type of notion..? Cvene64 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's POV, however you are right that it could possibly be included but I think it would have to be a quote from someone notable, e.g. an ex All Black or ex AB's coach. I think if it were to come from someone who hadn't been directly involved in an AB's team it would not be credible. - Shudda talk 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Advertising

The manufacturer of the jersey is relatively unimportant except as advertising, it was prominently mentioned twice within a few sentences and included detail. I removed it. I must apologize, for some reason it logged me out when I saved from preview so the post appears anonymous. Digitalblister 11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Adidas is actually pretty important as it is one of the few things on the shirt! and the silver fern.

[edit] Oddity - two tests lost on same day

How come this info is under its own heading? Doesnt anyone think it should be in the history section? Its only a handful of lines, and looks kind of random/scrappy/out of place right now. Cvene64 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%.GordyB 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't. It logically immediately follows the Record and Overall (records) subheadings. If it was ever going to look out of place it would be up near the top in the history section. Moriori 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well, it does seem strange to have it there. It might seem logical but it doesn't read well. It does look a bit scappy, i think it could be incorporated into the history section. - Shudda talk 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Moriori, I just don't think it deserves its own section, I mean, how much can possibly be written about it? Cvene64 07:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You originally criticised it because it was "a handful of lines and looks kind of random/scrappy/out of place". Now you wonder how much can possibly be written about it. What? What exactly are you on about? Nothing more can be written about it. Nothing more needs to be written about it. It is concise, accurate, all encompassing and informative. It is a true oddity, a quite amazing record unique to the ABs. It justifies it own little mention because of all of those reasons. WTF is wrong with that? Moriori 07:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Err mate, calm down. I can have as many criticisms as I wish. If little can be written about it, then obviously its notability to demand its own heading is dubious. Im a huge rugby fan, and I have not really ever heard of it, only really through the wiki article. Thats not to say it is not notable, but I thought it may have been written in by an Aussie or something, and noone took any notice of it, and it just stayed there. What am I on about? I thought having a few lines about one event did not look too good, and I had my doubts if it deserved its own heading. Unless its notability (to uphold its own heading or sub-heading) can be proven, I think it should be merged. Why? Because it looks stupid and out of place. And I dont know what your problem is (Some people apparently prefer large chunks of text...?) I consider it a style issue more than anything. Cvene64 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to have criticisms, but stick to facts. I neither wrote nor inferred anything remotely like "little can be written about it". I said it already "is concise, accurate, all encompassing and informative," and nothing more "can be" or "needs to be" written about it. Moriori 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current team

I think we should list out the current team like the notable players section is done, as the box always appears hidden due to there being more than one of those types of templates...Narrasawa 09:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It would be nice but given the large squads these days it would be a nightmare keeping it all up to date. Lisiate 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what is being asked for here, but I'm going to change it. It is no good to anyone if we can't see it. There are only about two or three ABs squads every year, so the most current squad should be listed, it seems to work fine on a lot of the other pages. I'm going to add the November squad. Cvene64 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change colours

In the graphic - The change colours - I'm fairly sure the socks are black, not white? IE the only difference is that the Jersey is white. COuldn't be 100% sure, but thought i'd mention it. ElectricRay 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest when was the last time the ABs wore a white strip? Are there any images on the net or anything? Cheers. Cvene64 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Usually when they play Scotland in New Zealand. In World Cups in a third country I think one of the teams is designated the 'Home' team at random. I can't remember the most recent tour by Scotland. NZ last played Scotland in a world cup in the 1999 quarterfinals. Lisiate 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahh ok. Thanks for the information. Cvene64 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Hi I was using Flickr to check out some photos that could be used for this article, maybe someone could upload some of them if anyone thinks it would look good: (NZ/ENG @ Twickenham), (NZ/AUS @ ?), (Haka v ENG). Theres not much, but maybe you can zoom in on the Haka and (cut it out) and use in place of the copyright image, as the less copyright images the better yer?.-(Rugbeefan)

[edit] GA Passing

Honestly, I can't think of anything wrong with this article. It's brilliantly sourced, unlike any article I've seen before. It covers the subject very well, well written and the little things (like "Refs" comming after the punctuation) are all in order. I'd send this to FAC ASAP. But that's just my opinion. Good Work everyone

†he Bread 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Nothing wrong? - Shudda talk 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I've submitted the article for a peer-review, please go to WP:PR and leave comments if people suggest improvements. This is important if we want to get this article to FA status. - Shudda talk 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly constitutes a Grand Slam Tour?

It is mentioned in the history section that the All Blacks narrowly missed out on a Grand Slam tourin 1972/73 by drawing with Ireland. But if I remember correctly, they lost to France in that very same tour. So did a Grand Slam mean beating just England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, or all the teams in the 5 nations tournament? Tomos ANTIGUA Tomos 13:26, 03 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked that the 1972 tour was not a grand slam. The articles claims that this was due to a draw with Ireland. A grand slam is wins over England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. France is not part of it. See Grand Slam (Rugby Union).GordyB 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixtures

Numerous users made comments that the fixtures/results section should go (see Peer Review). It is fine to have them on other national team articles, but some users are working towards making the All Blacks a Featured Article, and it was thought that a list of current events was not appropriate. I imagine that if the Irish/Springboks articles were going through the same process, the same thing would happen. If you have other thoughts, please discuss them here...cheers. 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The upcoming fixture information is mostly in 2007 Tri Nations Series and 2007 Rugby World Cup, which will become permanent records of those games after the fact. If we create an article for All Blacks 2007 May/June Tests or some such, everything will be recorded without cluttering up the All Blacks article. --Stormie 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/l/Talk%7EAll_Blacks_e169.html"