Talk:Magners League
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 Magners League, 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. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] 2006-07
Anyone interested in creating a 2006-07 Magners League article? All other major domestic/international comps have seasonal articles, as well as many which are probably not as big as the CL, so the 06/07 CL definantly needs to be created..Cvene64 12:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see why we shouldn't have one so I've created it. Please help expand it, add references etc. Alexj2002 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TV rights
Who holds the TV rights? matturn 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
BBC
- BBV Wales broadcast games, BBC Scotland and Alba probably also do. RTE in the Republic of Ireland. I don't know in Northern Ireland but probably the BBC again.GordyB 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Setanta Sports have rights. Londo06 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 and beyond
Borders leaving, is there any plans to add a new franchise to replace them or cull further clubs, ie Welsh and Irish strugglers? Londo06 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are some plans to try to save the Borders, it is not necessarily over yet. Connacht is always threatened with closure but the Welsh regions are fairly secure to my knowledge. There will be no new Irish teams as Ireland only has four provinces, I can't see any new Welsh teams either the old Celtic Warriors franchise owner has gone over to rugby league and the other big teams are tied into existing regions. Only Wrexham could support a team but rugby isn't popular up there. Theoretically the old Caledonian Reds franchise might get resurrected but a lot would have to change for that to be possible.
- Of course if the Anglo-French boycott threats over the Heineken Cup go ahead then all bets are off.18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move to Magners League?
It seems to be the more common term now...Goldman07 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This should absolutely been done, it's the common convention for the other 'named' competitions in world rugby Daveirl 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question from it.wiki
I translated the voice "Celtic League" for it.wiki but I need a little help (I don't know rugby very well): what does "regional side" mean? Does it mean that in that team can play only players coming from that particular region? Please, answer here or here. Thank you, Tia solzago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.108.194 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your fast answer --80.117.108.194 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First two seasons
Why there aren't voices about the first two season of Celtic League? --80.117.108.253 13:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because nobody has written them. GordyB 13:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another question from it.wiki
Hi. I'm always Tia solzago and I've another question (sorry my ignorance): what was Celtic Cup? Was a competition played between Celtic League's teams with a knock-out format, it wasn't? It was like any other national cup, like Welsh Cup, or not? And was it played only two years, am I correct? If somebody answers here, I can create a voice about Celtic Cup (on it.wiki). Thank you --80.117.109.112 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Celticleague.png
Image:Celticleague.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union as the name of this article: Celtic or Magners League --Snowded (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Other Nations section
I think that the Other Nations section should be turned into a 'Future' section and be more stringently footnoted. Covering both the potential expansion and contraction of the league such as the potential disbandment of [Connacht]]. I do also think there should be something mentioned about the potential conflict with the RFU about expansion into England. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't a serious offer on the table for Cornish Pirates or anybody else to join the Magners League. The Welsh would play in the English set-up if they could let alone London based clubs. It's only ever going to happen if the RFU abandon promotion and relegation.
- Talking about the likely reaction of the RFU is entirely speculative. This is an encylopaedia not a magazine, the reaction of the RFU isn't very relevant.GordyB (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The statement "The Welsh would play in the English set-up if they could" is of course not speculative? While there have been discussions on Anglo-Welsh tournaments in the past and we had the rebel years with Cardiff and Swansea I think that boat sailed a long time ago and its not really relevant. --Snowded (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on including it in the article so whilst it is POV, I don't have to be NPOV on talk pages. The boat has sailed because the RFU don't need Welsh clubs but the fact is that Welsh clubs get better attendences against teams from "across the bridge" than they do against Scots or Irish teams.GordyB (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, its much more fun beating the English than fellow celts but this belief that the RFU can manage on its own, or possibly with France has been around for a bit and its not good for the game. The issue on promotion assumes that in some ways welsh clubs would be afraid of it, the reality is that in Wales as in all other parts of the world bar England and France, national interests dominate. Its one of the big issues for Rugby to face over the next few years. Personally I would expand the Heineken Cup a bit to increase cross league interaction but that as you say is beyond the scope of this article! What do you think of my suggestion below that we get rid of the Cornish reference is there is no evidence for it and collapse the section? --Snowded (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMO it should be removed, doubtless it is true that some Cornish fans would like to see their team in the Celtic League but it is probably true that some Gwent Dragons fans would like to see their team in the English structures. I don't think the opinions of fans is notable unless it is a clear majority.GordyB (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it has to be a majority, but it has to be significant. We now have a couple of citations which show some fans making the suggestions on chat lines. I think this is weak, but it is there. I don't see anything similar in Dragons sites. I am inclined to leave it now but we probably need more opinions. --Snowded (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The source would have to be pretty good for it to be significant. A chatline doesn't constitute a proper source. A newspaper article reporting on chalines is however.GordyB (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. A secondary source more authoritative than a primary source? --Snowded (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the way wikipedia works.GordyB (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- ... and that is your opinion and a dubious one. Lets see what other people say --Snowded (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, he's right actually. That's how Wikipedia works. – PeeJay 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I love these definitive statements. Firstly to make such a statement breaks the fifth pillar. Secondly the requirement is for verifiability and citation. If a newspaper reports chat line comments then we can make statements about press reports. If we cite the chat line comments directly then we can make limited statements about the chat line. Either way this is a silly argument over a minor issue. The question is whether the Cornish chat comments should be on that page. One editor thinks so, I am inclined to support him. Its open discussion time. --Snowded (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would be insane to trust primary sources like forums and chatrooms ahead of secondary sources like newspapers. I could very easily go along and post on a chatroom, then come back here and cite that post in order to establish my own opinion on Wikipedia. This is why we have to wait until the primary sources have been reported in secondary outlets before using them here. – PeeJay 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you posted to a chat room and then referenced it then it would be nonsense. If there are several comments in several historical chat rooms than it is evidence (weak evidence) of fans opinions. The fact that a cub reporter on a regional newspaper decides to write a story about the same does not dignify it with objectivity. --Snowded (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you were to cite comments made by individuals on a chatroom, it could be viewed as original research, which is also not allowed on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I remain unsure as to why we are having this conversation as I am not particularly concerned if the statement stands or falls, but never mind. The statement "on club chat lines suggestions have been raised that the Pirates should join the Celtic League" is not original research it is verifiable primary source data. Of course it may not be relevant, it may not be strong enough evidence to include in an article. I checked original research and the above statement is consistent with it. --Snowded (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you were to cite comments made by individuals on a chatroom, it could be viewed as original research, which is also not allowed on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you posted to a chat room and then referenced it then it would be nonsense. If there are several comments in several historical chat rooms than it is evidence (weak evidence) of fans opinions. The fact that a cub reporter on a regional newspaper decides to write a story about the same does not dignify it with objectivity. --Snowded (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would be insane to trust primary sources like forums and chatrooms ahead of secondary sources like newspapers. I could very easily go along and post on a chatroom, then come back here and cite that post in order to establish my own opinion on Wikipedia. This is why we have to wait until the primary sources have been reported in secondary outlets before using them here. – PeeJay 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I love these definitive statements. Firstly to make such a statement breaks the fifth pillar. Secondly the requirement is for verifiability and citation. If a newspaper reports chat line comments then we can make statements about press reports. If we cite the chat line comments directly then we can make limited statements about the chat line. Either way this is a silly argument over a minor issue. The question is whether the Cornish chat comments should be on that page. One editor thinks so, I am inclined to support him. Its open discussion time. --Snowded (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Erm, he's right actually. That's how Wikipedia works. – PeeJay 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- ... and that is your opinion and a dubious one. Lets see what other people say --Snowded (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the way wikipedia works.GordyB (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it has to be a majority, but it has to be significant. We now have a couple of citations which show some fans making the suggestions on chat lines. I think this is weak, but it is there. I don't see anything similar in Dragons sites. I am inclined to leave it now but we probably need more opinions. --Snowded (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMO it should be removed, doubtless it is true that some Cornish fans would like to see their team in the Celtic League but it is probably true that some Gwent Dragons fans would like to see their team in the English structures. I don't think the opinions of fans is notable unless it is a clear majority.GordyB (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, its much more fun beating the English than fellow celts but this belief that the RFU can manage on its own, or possibly with France has been around for a bit and its not good for the game. The issue on promotion assumes that in some ways welsh clubs would be afraid of it, the reality is that in Wales as in all other parts of the world bar England and France, national interests dominate. Its one of the big issues for Rugby to face over the next few years. Personally I would expand the Heineken Cup a bit to increase cross league interaction but that as you say is beyond the scope of this article! What do you think of my suggestion below that we get rid of the Cornish reference is there is no evidence for it and collapse the section? --Snowded (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on including it in the article so whilst it is POV, I don't have to be NPOV on talk pages. The boat has sailed because the RFU don't need Welsh clubs but the fact is that Welsh clubs get better attendences against teams from "across the bridge" than they do against Scots or Irish teams.GordyB (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Try reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, particularly the section headed "overview". Interpreting primary data is specifically prohibited.GordyB (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did and interpretation would be wrong, factual statements referencing primary sources are not. You suggestion that it would be OK if reported in a newspaper article could well fall at "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Come on guys this is 101 research--Snowded (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Claiming that a particular opinion is common based on primary evidence is interpretation of that material and therefore original research. Using an article as a reference is reporting somebody else's research which is allowed. There is a list of what constitutes an acceptable source and a respectable newspaper is on and a forum posting is not.GordyB (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well we could go round this loop for ever and your confidence in the accuracy of even respectable newspapers is touching and your use of "interpretation" a novel use of language given my earlier statements. However this is getting no where. I am not supporting advocating the inclusion of this particular item, although I am not inclined to delete it if other editors support it. You might want to add the fact tag back in if you feel strongly about this. --Snowded (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been a major editor of these pages for four and a half years. When I say that what you suggested is original reasearch, it is based on more than merely my own interpretation.GordyB (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Four and half years as an editor on these pages obviously makes your views definitive, I can only apologise for daring to use some logic. Irony aside, add back in the fact tag if you don't like the sentence, happy to agree what is there is weak. --Snowded (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- 4 and a half years means that I have had this kind of conversation many, many times and it always ends in the same way. Your interpretations of what no original research and what constitutes a valid source is not one that is subscribed to by many people.GordyB (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been a major editor of these pages for four and a half years. When I say that what you suggested is original reasearch, it is based on more than merely my own interpretation.GordyB (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well we could go round this loop for ever and your confidence in the accuracy of even respectable newspapers is touching and your use of "interpretation" a novel use of language given my earlier statements. However this is getting no where. I am not supporting advocating the inclusion of this particular item, although I am not inclined to delete it if other editors support it. You might want to add the fact tag back in if you feel strongly about this. --Snowded (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Claiming that a particular opinion is common based on primary evidence is interpretation of that material and therefore original research. Using an article as a reference is reporting somebody else's research which is allowed. There is a list of what constitutes an acceptable source and a respectable newspaper is on and a forum posting is not.GordyB (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did and interpretation would be wrong, factual statements referencing primary sources are not. You suggestion that it would be OK if reported in a newspaper article could well fall at "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Come on guys this is 101 research--Snowded (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The statement "The Welsh would play in the English set-up if they could" is of course not speculative? While there have been discussions on Anglo-Welsh tournaments in the past and we had the rebel years with Cardiff and Swansea I think that boat sailed a long time ago and its not really relevant. --Snowded (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its not a good section but neither is it necessarily "future". The conversations with Italy and South Africa took place. The Cornish link one can understand (Kernow) but it needs evidence so I have tagged it as a fact. If there is no evidence for that then maybe best to collapse the section into a sentence in history relating to SA and Italy? If there is evidence then I agree that possible RFU (they really should rename themselves ERU by the way) opposition would have to be noted but I don't think this is the place for speculation. Is there any evidence on Cornwall? --Snowded (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
