Talk:Lesley Vainikolo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weight
Both the Guinness Premiership and Gloucester Rugby sites list his weight as 17 st 8 lbs/112 kg, so I updated the info box, as we should go with the official weight from his current club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbiggs (talk • contribs) 09:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
League players shed weight throughout the league season. He has probably put this back on since he moved south. Londo06 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Big Les is noticeably small in his upper body from perhaps two or three seasons ago. He may well have lost nearly two stone to allow him to still score length of the field tries. His strength is unquestioned but I would look to Gloucester and England for sources and if possible check to see where they came from and how old they are. The Volcano was bigger, but in the game of Rugby Union he is just as explosive.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- New BBC link has has weight listed as well above what is currently on the infobox. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Issue with with weight has been fixed. There is now something about until 'infobox can accomodate dual code players'. Seems bizarre. Hopefully with the move over time in line with cricket, football (soccer), rugby league, etc these small issues will be ironed out.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] International Rugby Union career
The article suggests that the decision to play for England rather than Tonga or the All Blacks was entirely his own, which is not strictly the case. Basically, his move to union and contract at Gloucester is part-funded by the RFU (the English governing body for rugby union) in order that he would play for England, presumably with a clause in the contract to that effect. I haven't changed it because I don't know the details, but as it stands it is misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.11.115 (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
so he was press-ganged onto the pitch against the Welsh was he. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] lb or lbs?
The relevant text from WP:MOSNUM reads
- Symbols have no plural form, i.e. an s is never appended (‘kg’, ‘km’, ‘in’, ‘lb’, ‘bit’, not ‘kgs’, ‘kms’, ‘ins’, ‘lbs’, ‘bits’).
I have tried to follow this guideline by replacing lbs with lb in the information box, but this change has been reverted (twice). Is there a reason why this article should not follow MOSNUM? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would be lbs for anything but 0 and 1 lb. Not the same for in, that is never pluralised for human measurements. It is a UK thing as far as we can determine and only for human weight.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- The guideline makes it clear that the plural of lb is lb. Can you point to a discussion where it has been agreed to use lbs instead? I will ask at MOSNUM whether an exception is appropriate for UK articles. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- UK? The bloke's a Tongan-born Kiwi ... but this is beside the point. No difficulties at MOSNUM: the rule applies to all unit symbols on all articles. Unit symbols/abbreviations are never pluralised on Wikipedia regardless of what people do outside in the UK or wherever. JIMp talk·cont 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On wikipedia, it's lb. —MJCdetroit (yak) 04:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-