Talk:Chiefs (Super rugby franchise)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union. This project provides a central approach to rugby union-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing Chiefs (Super rugby franchise), and help us assess and improve articles to good and featured standards, or visit the project page, where you can join and view the list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Hope someone got permission to use that logo!!!
- Click on the logo and you will get the following boilerplate: This is a copyrighted and/or trademarked logo. It is believed that logos may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization. See Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:Copyrights. —Stormie 11:16, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
The result of the proposal was no move as no consensus to move will ever be reached (WP:SNOW) --Bob 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Chiefs (Super rugby franchise) → Chiefs — "Chiefs" currently redirects to "Chief". Why can't we move this page to a similar position to the Crusaders article? --HamedogTalk|@ 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
- Support It is important for all the New Zealand teams to be at their proper names. Chiefs currently redirects and I believe most people searching this article will type "Chiefs"--HamedogTalk|@ 05:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose There are four other sports teams named the "Chiefs" with articles on Wikipedia. The Kansas City Chiefs are especially prominent in the US and are what any US reader would be looking for. -Anþony (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Please remember that this is a world wide encyclopedia. Do you have a citation to prove the claim that "I believe most people searching this article will type"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above -- Beardo 08:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above; I immediately thought of the Kansas City Chiefs. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above; The KC Chiefs are definitely the more popular in the US and possibly Canada. How popular is an unsuccessful rugby union team? It is also important to note that of the 14 teams in Super 14, only 4 (Crusaders, Central Cheetahs, Stormers, and Southern Spears) are not disambiguated in some manner. --Bobblehead 19:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Many teams known as the Chiefs. If anything, Crusaders should become a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Chiefs should be a disambig page, but the KC Chiefs are far too notable. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - for reasons mentioned above. Just add this team to the disambig page with the others. ENDelt260 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose but not because of the overated KC Chiefs, but because other uses for that word exist outside of rugby. --Bob 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
Apparently this is part of a larger effort to take over several generic team names. I hope you will realize that these teams are not the only ones that go by such names. In fact, they're quite common. Several of the other teams are definitely more prominent than these rugby teams in other parts of the world. The current situation using disambiguation pages is entirely appropriate. Please do not put the other articles up for a move. -Anþony (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- If I have the time, I would like to respond to this comment and cite numerous reliable examples in common American English where the Kansas City Chiefs are commonly referred to as just "Chiefs". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that why can't this article be like the Crusaders article? The Kansas City Chiefs has a location in the name, thus people will search for that. The Chiefs has no location in the name and using the current format is unsightly and the previous format of the Waikato Chiefs is incorrect. I think the issue is that people saying oppose don't realise this.--HamedogTalk|@ 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- If anything, the Crusaders article is the one that needs to be moved. There are three other "Crusaders" sports teams, two bands, a religious youth group, and a group of comic book characters. I'm not going to bother putting it up for a move myself because I have no idea how prominent those other uses of the term are in relation to the rugby team.
-
- However, the Kansas City Chiefs are very prominent in the US. They are routinely referenced by fans and the media as simply the "Chiefs" when it would be redundant or overfly formal to say "Kansas City" every time. As even you must be aware, this is extremely common for sports teams whose official names include their home town, university, or whatever. It is beyond doubt that people will search for the Kansas City Chiefs simply by entering "Chiefs" because that is easier and they may not be aware of the other uses of the term, and so would expect it to redirect to Kansas City Chiefs.
-
- I invite you to review WP:D#Primary topic, which states in part:
- When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.
- All of those voting, excluding yourself as the nominator, have disputed that the rugby team is the primary meaning of "Chiefs". There is clearly no consensus to support the primary topic claim or this move. -Anþony (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I invite you to review WP:D#Primary topic, which states in part:
- Just so you know, I didn't post those unsigned comments above. The Rugby Union Chiefs are well known in New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom (Queendom), Ireland, France, Italy, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga , Japan and Argentina. That versus the United States Chiefs.--HamedogTalk|@ 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can only assume that you are using the localized version of Google for New Zealand, which does indeed return the rugby Chiefs as #1.[1] However, even there, the Kansas City Chiefs come up #2, implying that the US team has a good deal of notoriety world-wide. Of course, the Kansas City Chiefs come up #1 on Google.com[2] and even Google.co.uk[3]. All three searches bring up quite a few "Chiefs" unrelated to the New Zealand rugby team. -Anþony (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was actually using the Australia version of Google. You said that the KC Chiefs came up second on those, stating a good level of "notoriety world-wide". However, the RU Chiefs came up second on the pages where the KC Chiefs were first, suggesting a similar level of "notoriety world-wide", going by your standards. Seeing as this is being heavely opposed, how about a disambiguous page for the term "Chiefs", rather than that specific term redirecting to Chief.--HamedogTalk|@ 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- For disambig pages, the plural form of the word should be included with the singular form. Chiefs should be included with Chief. —Mike 06:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I never claimed that the rugby Chiefs aren't prominent, only that others uses are prominent as well. When there are multiple prominent articles with the same name, a disambiguation page is the natural solution, which we have now. I'm not aware of a specific rule against having a dab page for Chiefs separate from Chief, but it would probably be confusing. The current situation is fine. -Anþony (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- For disambig pages, the plural form of the word should be included with the singular form. Chiefs should be included with Chief. —Mike 06:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was actually using the Australia version of Google. You said that the KC Chiefs came up second on those, stating a good level of "notoriety world-wide". However, the RU Chiefs came up second on the pages where the KC Chiefs were first, suggesting a similar level of "notoriety world-wide", going by your standards. Seeing as this is being heavely opposed, how about a disambiguous page for the term "Chiefs", rather than that specific term redirecting to Chief.--HamedogTalk|@ 05:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can only assume that you are using the localized version of Google for New Zealand, which does indeed return the rugby Chiefs as #1.[1] However, even there, the Kansas City Chiefs come up #2, implying that the US team has a good deal of notoriety world-wide. Of course, the Kansas City Chiefs come up #1 on Google.com[2] and even Google.co.uk[3]. All three searches bring up quite a few "Chiefs" unrelated to the New Zealand rugby team. -Anþony (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
[edit] Maps
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in New Zealand may be able to help! |
Maps of the franchise encachment areas would enhance the article. Chainz 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Super rugby" franchise
"Super rugby"?!?!? what in the world is going on with that? It should either be simply at Chiefs or at Chiefs (Super 14 rugby franchise). The Chiefs are my local team and I have never before heard of them refered to as a "Super rugby franchise". I'm not saying the term is never used but it must be a very rare term. Gets some 400 results from google. Mathmo Talk 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since Super 12 changed to Super 14, the new term Super Rugby was coined out and since then all franchises are known as Super rugby team which is better to use then (Super 14 rugby franchise)...--Cometstyles 09:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Chiefs (rugby) is actually the best title. It's nice and simple. I wouldn't oppose the move. - Shudda talk 10:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree Shudda, and all other NZ and SA teams should follow the move. "Super rugby franchise" sounds odd, (rugby) is the best way to go. All the links (which are probably already broken by constant moving) should be fixed as well. Cvene64 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Teams like Stormers ,Queensland Reds, Central Cheetahs and New South Wales Waratahs dont even have a (rugby) tag in their name and using (rugby) makes it sound so common and these teams are part of the biggest rugby club competition in the world and more people watch and follow Super Rugby then any other Northern Hemisphere club competitions and using (rugby) might create problems such as Blues (rugby) might redirect to Cardiff Blues or Sharks (rugby) might redirect to Sale Sharks so I think its better we stay with super rugby because since the NZ Teams removed their first names (Canterbury Crusaders>>Crusaders), they are starting to sound more like International clubs and also sounds a bit more professional and anyways even if someone types Chiefs rugby it would redirect to Chiefs (Super rugby franchise) and it applies to all other teams as well and anyways so I dont see any problem...--Cometstyles 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. All the commentators talk about "Super Rugby" now anyway. It's not that weird or uncommon. JCIACHNE 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think rugby is the simplest. If people search for Chiefs, to try and find this team, the most likely other word they include in their search would be rugby. I agree that the occasional person may go to the article thinking it's another team (for example Blues, Cardiff Blues), but most teams in the Super 14 don't have a regional identifier (such as Cardiff, or Sale) so it makes sense the article belongs here. A disambiguation link can be included at the top of the article also. Some don't need the (rugby) bit, but I don't see how that really matters. - Shudda talk 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Teams like Stormers ,Queensland Reds, Central Cheetahs and New South Wales Waratahs dont even have a (rugby) tag in their name and using (rugby) makes it sound so common and these teams are part of the biggest rugby club competition in the world and more people watch and follow Super Rugby then any other Northern Hemisphere club competitions and using (rugby) might create problems such as Blues (rugby) might redirect to Cardiff Blues or Sharks (rugby) might redirect to Sale Sharks so I think its better we stay with super rugby because since the NZ Teams removed their first names (Canterbury Crusaders>>Crusaders), they are starting to sound more like International clubs and also sounds a bit more professional and anyways even if someone types Chiefs rugby it would redirect to Chiefs (Super rugby franchise) and it applies to all other teams as well and anyways so I dont see any problem...--Cometstyles 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree Shudda, and all other NZ and SA teams should follow the move. "Super rugby franchise" sounds odd, (rugby) is the best way to go. All the links (which are probably already broken by constant moving) should be fixed as well. Cvene64 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Chiefs (rugby) is actually the best title. It's nice and simple. I wouldn't oppose the move. - Shudda talk 10:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I feel Chiefs (Super rugby franchise) should be at Chiefs, because currently Chiefs is not being used at all (is merely a redirect). And I know of no other article that could possible lay claim to the usage of Chiefs as their location for their respective article to the same degree as the Cheifs rugby team can. Mathmo Talk 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would really agree with you but just like what happened to the Crusaders which now redirects to the crusades instead of the crusaders rugby team like it use to be4 , the same thing would happen and non rugby followers would go against it...(Why fight a losing battle)..--Cometstyles 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is a big difference here between chiefs and crusaders, because the plural form of crusader is very common. They didn't go fight as just one crusader! Hence the plural form of crusader is a common search term, however the plural form of cheif is much rarer than the singular. Because in general usage you have one chief of a tribe. While chiefs in rugby is naturally always plural due to it being a team. Mathmo Talk 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know but if you look above there has already been a consensus on this and well rugby lost but the same thing will happen again. Maybe someone would want it to redirect to Kansas City Chiefs, an American football team or maybe the Laval Chiefs, an Ice Hockey team in Quebec, Canada and as a consensus has already taken place we better leave it to that..--Cometstyles 12:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
- "has been the least successful of the competition's five New Zealand sides"
- "Least successful" is a vague phrase, that ought to not be there or at least ought to be immediately qualified straight after the statement. So for now I'll be removing it. Mathmo Talk 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- They have only qualified for the semi-finals once. So they are the least unsuccessful. - Shudda talk 05:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are probably missing the point, "successful" is itself a vague term. Hence "least successful" is also vague, because it is least successful at what?? Money gained by the franchise? Crowd turnouts at the matchs? Or in your case... "least number of semi-finals appearances". They are all one of many varying metrics for success. So as such it ought to either not be included, or have a suitable reference and be stated in such as a way that it makes this clear. Mathmo Talk 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It makes a lot of sense though, how far you progress through the competition is almost certainly the best measure of success. Something like, "They are the least successful New Zealand Super 14 team, as they are the one to never reach a competition final." Certainly letting people know that is important though. If not, then a footnote could be added to the sentence. So "They are the least successful New Zealand franchise.<ref>This is because they are the only New Zealand franchise to never reach a Super final.</ref> - Shudda talk 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The footnote option wouldn't make it less POV. Something along the lines of "Having only made it into the playoffs once, the Chiefs have had the least amount of post-season success." Or if you want to use another metric (and no idea if this is true), "The Chiefs have the worst regular season record in the league with XXX wins and XXX losses or a XX% winning percentage." --Bobblehead 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its not really referred to as post-season, and winning percentage is not really used as a measure of success in the competition. I don't see how a team that has only made the semi-finals once (they qualified fourth as well, so didn't host it), and never a final can be considered more successful then any team that has made a final, or won the competition. Of the four other team, the Crusaders and Blues have won the tournament (six and three times respectively), the Highlanders have hosted a final (in 1999) and been in three other semi-finals (1998, 2000, 2002), and the Hurricanes have been in a final (2006), and three semi-finals (1997, 2003, 2005). Not only are the Chiefs the least successful team, they are easily the least successful team. Its not POV, it's an unfortunate fact. I would love to say they have done better, but it's just not true. - Shudda talk 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, sorry about using the wrong terminology. The POV is how it is worded, not whether or not it's true or not. Using an example from WP:NPOV, writing "The Beatles are the greatest band in history" is a POV statement, but saying "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," is NPOV. I'm not saying the Chiefs are not the least successful team, just that the sentence should say why they are the least successful team. --Bobblehead 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is kind of what I was saying too. Unfortunately I'll agree with Shudda that (in most respects at least) the Chiefs are the least succesful. However... at the same time, I would not at all be surprised if you could find some way of looking at this which shows they are not the least succesful according to whatever other measure is used (crowd attendence?? Or?? Which there is more stats in the articles). Mathmo Talk 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, sorry about using the wrong terminology. The POV is how it is worded, not whether or not it's true or not. Using an example from WP:NPOV, writing "The Beatles are the greatest band in history" is a POV statement, but saying "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," is NPOV. I'm not saying the Chiefs are not the least successful team, just that the sentence should say why they are the least successful team. --Bobblehead 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its not really referred to as post-season, and winning percentage is not really used as a measure of success in the competition. I don't see how a team that has only made the semi-finals once (they qualified fourth as well, so didn't host it), and never a final can be considered more successful then any team that has made a final, or won the competition. Of the four other team, the Crusaders and Blues have won the tournament (six and three times respectively), the Highlanders have hosted a final (in 1999) and been in three other semi-finals (1998, 2000, 2002), and the Hurricanes have been in a final (2006), and three semi-finals (1997, 2003, 2005). Not only are the Chiefs the least successful team, they are easily the least successful team. Its not POV, it's an unfortunate fact. I would love to say they have done better, but it's just not true. - Shudda talk 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- The footnote option wouldn't make it less POV. Something along the lines of "Having only made it into the playoffs once, the Chiefs have had the least amount of post-season success." Or if you want to use another metric (and no idea if this is true), "The Chiefs have the worst regular season record in the league with XXX wins and XXX losses or a XX% winning percentage." --Bobblehead 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It makes a lot of sense though, how far you progress through the competition is almost certainly the best measure of success. Something like, "They are the least successful New Zealand Super 14 team, as they are the one to never reach a competition final." Certainly letting people know that is important though. If not, then a footnote could be added to the sentence. So "They are the least successful New Zealand franchise.<ref>This is because they are the only New Zealand franchise to never reach a Super final.</ref> - Shudda talk 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are probably missing the point, "successful" is itself a vague term. Hence "least successful" is also vague, because it is least successful at what?? Money gained by the franchise? Crowd turnouts at the matchs? Or in your case... "least number of semi-finals appearances". They are all one of many varying metrics for success. So as such it ought to either not be included, or have a suitable reference and be stated in such as a way that it makes this clear. Mathmo Talk 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Have just glanced over the final standings for the past three years, and in all of those years the chiefs are ahead of the blues and the highlanders. While saying the cheifs are a more successful franchise than the blues would be a stretch... certainly the point can be made that saying a franchise is more or less successful than the others is hardly clear cut if you do not state how and why the word "successful" is being used. Mathmo Talk 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, the footnote would be able to clarify that for people that really find it hard to believe. I think to exclude the statement would be bias however, as they are clearly less successful then either of those teams. What would be better is maybe to say "historically they are less successful" as their performance (like all other teams) varies season to season. I think this debate is getting a bit off topic though. It's really not unreasonable to include the statement. Someone that knows little of the Chiefs or the Super 12 or 14 would find such a statement very valuable. Crowd numbers, supporters, profits etc are separate, and thats not what this is about. Can we start to focus on improving this article, rather then discussing ways painting the team in a positive (or negative for that matter) light. - Shudda talk 09:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
