Talk:France national rugby union team
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Why the South West?
Does anyone know why rugby becam so strong in the south west of France?
Does it have anything to do with British links to the region both historic and related to the wine trade?
KH 2/6/05
Not a clue. Logically Northern France would have a more suitable climate, perhaps it has something to do with the poularity of other competiting sports such as soccer (more popular in the North).GordyB 17:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From Vichy France: Talking about the Vichy Governments occupation of France.
- Initially it ruled an unoccupied zone in Southern France and some French colonies
Perhaps theres something there? POds 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
That explains why union is much more popular than league in France but does not explain why both rugby codes have their heartland in the South. I don't think either form of rugby has ever been extremely popular in Northern France and so Vichy France has nothing to do with it IMO.GordyB 12:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Nothing to do with Vichy, rugby union became popular in the South West a long time before that time, imported there by wine merchants who went to the Bordeaux region. Bordeaux was the first team, not from Paris, to win the French championship
- Dingy 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent fixture, and Upcoming fixtures lists
Please contribute to the discussion about this at the WikiProject Rugby union talk page here. - Shudda talk 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Current squad
I have modified it, now similar to the FR version. Dingy 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notable players
Modified to have a list and Table in line with the French version. I hope that you can agree with that, an introduction will be added to justify the selection Dingy 14:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think those in the table are great. The other list should probably be removed as ten is enough for a list of notable players. - Shudda talk 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we can work on turning this section into a couple paragraphs like the ABs page? Cvene64 10:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History - Modern era
Maybe this section heading should be Professional era? I also think it should be summarised as it's probably got undue weight compared with the other history sections. Is this a good idea or do people think it's better to expand the rest of the history instead? - Shudda talk 04:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The modern section basically describes all the recent preformances. I think the other sections should be expanded a little, but the Modern section should be cut down by around 30% imo. Cvene64 10:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Expand the other sections if you can, I have tried my best with them. I don't think you should cut back relevant data because of undue weight. We should have as much data as possible as long as it is relevant.GordyB 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- We may find if this article goes through an FAC that this is brought up though, thats is why I mentioned it. I think that Cvene64 is right, we expand the other sections then cut it down around 30%. - Shudda talk 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's so far away that we need not worry about it.We're not even close to Good status surely.GordyB 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aim high I say! The guts of the article is there, needs a copy-edit, some additions, and referencing. We may as well prevent or resolve problems now rather then once lots of work has been done on the article. The thing is, if it's going to be bought up in an FAC then lets deal with it rather then sweep it under the carpet. - Shudda talk 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's so far away that we need not worry about it.We're not even close to Good status surely.GordyB 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- We may find if this article goes through an FAC that this is brought up though, thats is why I mentioned it. I think that Cvene64 is right, we expand the other sections then cut it down around 30%. - Shudda talk 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Expand the other sections if you can, I have tried my best with them. I don't think you should cut back relevant data because of undue weight. We should have as much data as possible as long as it is relevant.GordyB 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ironically I have now come across a new source of information for the page and the history section is much bigger than it was and will only get bigger. I think the history section should be summarised (the summary in the lead-in would do as a start) and we should link to a history article. I'll wait for responses before doing anything.GordyB 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- You've done really good work, congratulations. What about leaving it for now, so that it gets edited whilst it's the collaboration. When the collaboration is over, or it's clear nothing is being done to improve the history section then we can split up the article. Is this a good idea? Or should we split it up now? - Shudda talk 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's split it when the collaboration is over.GordyB 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Logo
Does anyone have a better logo that can be used in the infobox? The current one is actually a photograph not a logo. The FFR website has one but it is too small...? Cvene64 10:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could import the one used in the french version (infobox) Dingy 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)