Talk:Crusaders (rugby union)

Untitled

Crusaders text box.

it u want the crusaders userbox here it is

This user supports the Crusaders

Name change

This article's name really needs to be changed to the Crusaders, as the team ceased to be known as the "Canterbury Crusaders" a number of years ago. Unfortunately I don't know how to do it, can someone help? Eastpaw

There are hundreds of other teams of many sports in the world called Crusaders, some obscure rugby team from New Zealand is not the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Why do the Crusaders have a different infobox to everyone else? Cvene64 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jade Stadium

Er why does it say Jade's capacity is 25,000? Is it not 36,000??

I think you are right, not 100% sur though. I'll check it later on today. Also, please sign your comments with four tides (~). It just helps to know who is saying what! Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Horsemen

To who ever has been making these great edits, I salute you! But we need to mention the Horsemen. You know, they ride around before the games. Should this go under name and colours? Cheers.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I've tried to reorganise the article a bit, the horseman can be found under homeground, I figured that was the most appropriate place to have it as they don't ride around when it's an away game. I rewrote the horseman bit a while back cause it was POV and used a bit of weasel words. - Shudde ^talk 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben Gollings mention

Perhaps we should mention sevens star Ben Gollings in this article - there are current rumors of him being included on the Crusaders roster next year. He will probably be the first overseas international player to play in a NZ S14 team (excluding Pacific Islanders). [1]--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not neccessary just yet, the teams for 2007 will be announced very soon, and considering it's not 100% confirmed yet prob easiest just to wait. I have been thinking about adding it for a few days but figure it's not something someone who wants to learn about the Crusaders would consider important info unless it'd already happened (ie unless it was confirmed he was playing or unless he'd actually played a game). If someone did add it I wouldn't be opposed though, as long as it was properly referenced and well written. - Shudde ^talk 09:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Passing

As a Highlanders fan it pains me to do this but, this is a comprehensive article on a, pretty good, Rugby team. Good Job

†he Bread 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for a not very descript review, i was rather short on time, overall the whole article really good, the citatons are good, images are ok, quite well written. One thing I noticed was, what I felt, was some "informal tone" scattered throughout the article, one I noticed was the use of something like "stumbled at the final hurdle", give it a quick check and try and take care of all that before you do FAC, I didn't consider it to be enough to fail the article at GA level though

†he Bread

Cheers for the review! Are you part of WP:RU? If so, I haven't seen you around - nice to meet you. If not, please join up!!!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not, I'll do what I can to help

†he Bread 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Paterson is missing from the squads

I really don't want to add anymore, I am on Wikibreak - can someone else do it?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Squad layout

Hey, I think i'm going to revert the formatting changes. I list my reasons here, and would like to discuss this before we change it back. I have a few problems:

• Why is it region not province?
• The national flags are redundant (only one non-NZer, and thats not referenced)
• Don't know about the ordering, should it not be either ordered by position or alphabetically, not some (seemingly) random order.
• The read links and incorrect player links (ie Peter Nixon, Ben May)
• The old system was simpler and seemed functional (hey, it passed GA?!)

I've moved the new squad layout to the sandbox here. Please discuss, thanks, - Shudde ^talk 01:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Shudde, first off, congrats on getting GA Status!! I just wanted to post here to say that I have been making some movements to get all the clubs/sides into line, the first step was creating a universal infobox which is now done. A player chart was then created also, which I think should be introduced to every article. See Stade Toulousain, Stade Francais etc. The current box (on Reds/Crusaders etc) is something that I took of the NFL pages. Even though the flags seem redundant, I think we should use them, to show just that, that almost all the players are from NZ. As for the ordering, I have just been putting it in alphabetical order. Cheers Cvene64 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I can understand why you would want all the rugby teams to have a similar layout, I do not think that the layout Hamedog put up is an improvement on the previous one. For the Super 14 teams, I don't see why they aren't just kept like the current layout here, (and the layouts at the Blues or Brumbies for example). There is a form of conformation already. The flags may be a good idea but all could be made smaller, as for positions, I didn't mention this above but having them only listed as one position is deceiving (most players play in more then one) and the names for the positions can be different in different parts of the world (for example fly-half and first five, scrumhalf and halfback, even back row and flankers). I think the Super 14 teams should just stay as is, thats all, seems like quite a lot of effort for nothing to me. - Shudde ^talk 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is for a universal squad list though. I have made edits so that the template can display either Fly-half or First Five-Eight and similar. Perhaps changing the template for a 2nd position? We should be creating redlinked articles.09:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Shudde I have plans to make the template be able to accommodate all multiple positions, and other things such as captain. I just really have not done it yet, but it is relevent, and I made the position names the same as those which are at rugby union positions. But I definantly think all teams should use it. Cheers. Cvene64 11:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Which format are we going to use? Greg Somerville is spelt wrong too, it is spelt in the squad list as "Sommerville" [sic]--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I say if it ain't broke don't fix it! I think the current format is fine, it wiki-links to the players who have articles about them, lets you know what positions they play, and there is no real need to state what country they are from (they're all contracted to NZRU anyway). It looks clean, neat and is well laid out. I see no reason to go through all the Super 14 teams and change it. - Shudde ^talk 00:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While you may think its not broken, the point of the other version, which I placed in the article, is so Rugby union has a universal squad box, like the Infobox. Perhaps we can modify it so there is no flags??--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why not the current one? Some form of box is definitely good (rather then a list), I think the concept of a universal one is a little bit over the top. I do believe that the boxes from teams within one competition should be similar though, but every competition will have different requirements. For example the NA4, Super 14 and Heinekin Cup. Also international teams would need to be diff. - Shudde ^talk 10:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

References from crfu.co.nz

I have been looking over the article again lately. There are quite a few references needed to be added. During my efforts I've discovered that many of the articles referencing news from the crfu.co.nz website (mainly references added by me) don't work. The website clearly gets regularly redesigned. I'd recommend that anyone adding references finds alternatives to crfu.co.nz. Unfortunately stuff.co.nz also gets regularly purged of it's old news content as well. - Shudde ^talk 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move to Crusaders (rugby). I don't see a wider consistency of dab'bing Rugby teams, so take this as a potentially provisional move (i.e. just away from the undisambiguated title). Thus, no prejudice agains another title (just not the bare Crusaders) Duja► 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Crusaders → Crusaders (rugby) — Name should redirect to Crusades as primary reference; team article will then follow the format of other Super rugby franchises (Blues, Hurricanes) etc SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support Defeats encyclopedic value if it links to a rugby team name rather than the crusades. <3 bunny 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support - I'm sorry to see that some people aren't supporting this commonsense change. I hate to see people with let their nationalististic concerns get the better of them; the what links here section just includes too many dab's to what should be crusades. Similarly I would never support moving Cincinnati Bengals to Bengals, or Pittsburgh Pirates to Pirates. This is just common sense. Part Deux 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   Note the teams you mention are not simply called Bengals or Pirates. The Crusaders (on the other hand) are known, offically, as the "Crusaders" and have been known as such for several years. Note the difference. They are not the Christchurch Crusaders or the Canterbury Crusaders but just the Crusaders. I am not sure whether people understand this. Also, this is not a nationalististic concern - the competition is played in 3 nations and is well followed around the world.----Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with Hamedog, to call this a question of nationalism misses the point. The team is very notable, and the competition is very widely followed (see Super 14). This is certainly not just a New Zealand thing, please read this article here. It's comments are from a leading sports administrator (who has worked in Europe, Australia and New Zealand), he states that "They've (the Crusaders) got the second most successful brand in world rugby", and he compares them to Manchester United. Unfortunately, Hamedog is also correct about the name, there is no regional identifier, they are simply Crusaders (which is why the article is here). - Shudde ^talk 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong Support for common sense. There is no way that an obcure Rugby team is a primary topic over the participants of a major historical event like the Crusades. It doesn't matter how famous a regional sports team is, the magnitude of a historical event should take precedent in any encyclopedia. i would strongly recomend for the closing admin to consider WP:IAR if this move request get out of hand. 205.157.110.11 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   The team is in no way "obcure" [sic]. It has the second best branding for any rugby union team after the national team the All Blacks.[2]. I suggest you review your vote as Crusades and Crusaders are different words and if somebody was looking for Crusade, the steps have been taken to ensure they can find their info.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

   The Crusaders are more well known as the participants in the Crusades then they will ever be for the rugby team. As a sport, Rugby is obscure compared to Soccer, Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, tennis, etc, etc. I would say that even a Soccer team (by far the world's most well known sport) with the name Crusaders would take a backseat to the historical event. 205.157.110.11 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

   Um, excuse me. You say rugby is obscure because it is not a widely played sport in the United States (where I am assuming you are from). The rugby world cup is the third most watched event in the world. American Football, is played in one country vs the 16 or so nations where rugby is well known and such what. Just look at the Tier 1 nations ({{National rugby teams}} and, to a lesser extent, the Tier 2 nations. Rugby is in no way obscure.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Support. Olessi 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - I support a move, but there are a nimber of possible targets. -- Beardo 07:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Crusaders should redirect to the Crusades, as that is the meaning intended in most instances of the word. Check "What links here" for confirmation. Jwillbur 17:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Per "What links here" most people mean the historical meaning and not the rugby team. -- Stbalbach 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Support a move to a disambiguated title. I'm somewhat indifferent as to where users will be redirected when they search for "Crusaders," but regardless, the multitude of possible uses indicates that the rugby team should be moved to some kind of parenthetically disambugated title. Carom 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Support The relative popularity of the sport of rugby has little to do with this issue; the Crusades and those who took part in them (Wikipedia does not at the moment have a page for the Crusades' participants separate from the main article, just a list) are a major, top-level history topic; if this was the article on rugby itself then it would be a trickier call but it's hard to see how a team (by definition a subset of the top-level topic itself, i.e. the sport of rugby) page can make similar claims to prominence in the Wikipedia "catalog". 125.173.61.87 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   Iam not sure if suggestions by anon should be taken because they might be someone from the above list entering wikipedai without logging(remember not all IP address are traced to one specific person)..--Cometstyles 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   Is this a vote, or a debate to determine consensus? If it's the latter, I'd prefer you addressed the argument rather than my identity. If you're really curious, I am a former regular editor of Wikipedia who's retired to anonymity due to my lack of time to devote fully to the project. This discussion caught my eye in browsing and I thought I'd contribute two cents' worth. If you'd like to checkuser me, feel free, but I think it's missing the point. 125.173.61.87 12:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

10. Support. The word should redirect to the Crusades with a linked note at the top for those few looking to read about the rugby club. Cla68 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, although we of course should also fix the incoming links. Adam Bishop 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    Strong support for move; although the new name could be one of several. -- Beardo 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    Your support is already indicated above. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

12. Strong Support - "Crusader" and "Crusaders" all derives from the historical antecedent. Move the rugby team to a disambiguated link, and leave "Crusaders" pointing at the historical Crusades, or an article more specific about the sort of people and the leading knights and kings that went on Crusade. --Petercorless 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. No, been in this location for some time. Is a noted team around the world and is often compared to the Manchester United of rugby union. As I mentioned, been in this location for some time without opposition. For the team being noted around the world - this can be seen in the fact the team plays games in Melbourne (a whole different country) and will being playing a match in London (on the other side of the World). Surely the most successful team in Super 14 and possibly non-international rugby must be located here. Known well in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia which is a large number of people.----Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2. No, encyclepedic value will be lost if the article "Crusaders" is wasted as a redirect. The steps have been taken to ensure that anyone who comes to Crusaders looking for something else can easily do so. The Crusaders is arguably one of the most famous in the world or rugby, most people typing in Crusaders will be looking for the team. By the way, the other article places of the Blues and Hurricanes should have no effect on where the Crusaders should be. For the record, the term (Super rugby franchise) is really weird, it should be (rugby team) if possible. Cvene64 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose As per Cvene above. There is a clear link to disambiguation at the top of the page. The appropriateness of the article's title should be discussed by it's own merits, not compared to other teams (btw, there is no standard title for Super rugby franchises, Hurricanes (Super rugby franchise) and Blues (rugby team) follow a different format). - Shudde ^talk 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose..No way..Crusaders deserve their stance. the crusaders is the most famous Rugby Franchise in the world and nothing can change that They have won the Super Rugby more than any other team and as Cvene64 said "The steps have been taken to ensure that anyone who comes to Crusaders looking for something else can easily do so"..no need 4 moving it..period..ø~Cometstyles~ø^(talk) 18:25, January 31, 2007
5. Oppose as well. If for some reason someone types in Crusaders into their web address, they can easily find their way to what they wanted. It will get the best usgae here as I'd say 98% of its traffic is for the rugby team. So there is no need for a move in my view. Rugger81 13:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Note to closing admin I removed a partisan call to arms from the WikiProject Rugby site and advised the editor to use only neutral language to direct attention to this discussion. It might nevertheless have been canvassed elsewhere. I have no opinion on the case (didn't even read it). Please no meta-discussions on canvassing here, that's what WT:CANVASS is for. ~ trialsanderrors 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry didn't know that.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So what is to be done now that this RM has been tainted by votestacking? --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much of an effect the post had. Was posted after much of the opposes. An apology has been made, so lets not blow this out of proportion. - Shudde ^talk 22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The post that told the Rugby members where to go and how to vote ("Go to Talk:Crusaders and state "Oppose" followed by a reason. No consensus is a result we should aim for.") was posted on the 30th of January. The first oppose did not appear until the next day. So let's not try to sweep this under the rug, either. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true, the post was at 03:24 UTC on 31 January. The opposing posts 1-3 were here before then. I'm not sure about 4 because a time-stamp wasn't added. So yeah, there were three opposing votes before Hamedog posted his message. You may have been looking at your local time, rather then the UTC time. - Shudde ^talk 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears you are right. The time displayed in the history differs from the timestamps. My sincerest apologies for my assumption of bad faith. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody taken a look at what links here?

Have a look With the 200+ links the overwhelming majority are relating the participants of the crusades and right now they are all improperly linking to a rugby team in New Zealand. That alone, should blow the whole "98% of people are searching for this rugby team" out of the water. This issue is a liability to the functionality and encyclopedic intergrity of the project when editors who are attempting to link to an article about the participants in the Crusades are unknowningly being sent here. And why should they know? Why in the world would anyone think that an article titled Crusaders go to anything but an article relating to the Crusades? Please, lets end the foolishness. 205.157.110.11 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Support the move. Crusaders is a term more often than not used to mean Crusades, it should redirect to Crusades. -- Stbalbach 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, if you click on "What links here?", it is pretty 50-50 between crusaders (military) and the Crusaders (rugby), to say that the overwhelmning majority are for the participants of the crusades is a massive exaggeration.GordyB 10:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's only because a substantial number of those wrong linkings have been corrected since yesterday. (I asked a couple Wikiprojects to help since there were so many incorrectly linked). However, even after we get all of them linked right, the natural propensity for articles to be more often intending to link to the historical crusaders means that we will be in the same mess soon in the future. It is simply non-sensical for this article to be titled this way when the primary mean by and large are the historical Crusaders. 205.157.110.11 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Maps

Maps of the franchise encachment areas would enhance the article. Chainz 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Featured Article

Please go to the comments page here and leave any comments you have. Any assistance responding to comments would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

McCaw quote

Our quote giving McCaw's reaction to the end of the winning streak seems to be missing a couple of words: "...in some ways it was almost a relief. We'd finally been beaten, the run was over, so people could stop talking about it and we could get on with playing it week by week." (My guesses at the missing words are underlined.) I don't have a copy of McIlraith's book handy - would someone please check on the wording? -- Avenue 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it tonight but you are almost certainly correct. - Shudde ^talk 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checked it with the book. Whats there now is correct. - Shudde ^talk 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Idiom usage

The idioms "top of the table" and "bottom of the table" are not familiar to this US writer. The meaning is clear enough from the context, but for maximum clarity across the English-speaking world, perhaps idioms should be avoided. Unimaginative Username 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What would you propose? Nil Einne 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he is saying that it's clear in the context of this article, but should be avoided in the future if possible. - Shudde ^talk 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

question

Why under "franchise area" is the word protect written in italics?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging Canterbury Crusaders into Crusaders (rugby)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal to change to redirect. 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 to change to redirect was to change to a redirect. A clear consensus, no need to keep discussion going. - Shudde ^talk 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Until recently Canterbury Crusaders was a redirect to Crusaders (rugby) as the Crusaders were formerly called the Canterbury Crusaders. However the article Canterbury Crusaders (speedway) was created and the page turned into a disambiguation. I propose reverting that back to a redirect, with a disambiguation at the top of this article. Reasons:

• Nearly all the articles linking to Canterbury Crusaders (see here) refer to the rugby team.
• Canterbury Crusaders is the primary topic, a google search and google news search will confirm this.
• This does not prevent people searching for the speedway team finding the disambiguation at the top of this article.
• The Crusaders are still very commonly refered to as the Canterbury Crusaders, especially outside New Zealand.

Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. - Shudde ^talk 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Support peads 07:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Support for all the above reasons --Hayden5650 07:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - as per nomination..--Cometstyles 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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.

Updated the "copy-edit in progress" template

Seems some careless copy-editor put a "copy-edit in progress" tag up there back in February 2007 but forgot to remove it when finished. (blush) Fixed it... sorry! Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackadder1998.jpg

Image:Blackadder1998.jpg 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 ensure 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) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Franchise area map

Is File:CrusadersTerritory.PNG correct? While the overall area looks fine, the map appears to me (admittedly a non-NZer) to show Kaikoura as part of the CRFU rather than as part of Tasman (as a member of the Marlborough sub-union). Not a big issue but one a Featured Article should get right. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2011 Wider Training Group

Is the wider training group notable? Would it be better to remove this section? - Shudde ^talk 06:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say not notable. BTW Tu Umaga-Marshal is mentioned in both for some reason. I feel that the team of the decade is borderline WP:Undue too. AIRcorn (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (multiple)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: all pages moved to format "XXX (rugby union)", per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 22:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

---

• Crusaders (rugby) → Crusaders (rugby franchise)
• Blues (Super Rugby franchise) → Blues (rugby franchise)
• Chiefs (Super Rugby franchise) → Chiefs (rugby franchise)
• Highlanders (rugby) → Highlanders (rugby franchise)
• Hurricanes (Super Rugby) → Hurricanes (rugby franchise)
• Bulls (Super Rugby) → Bulls (rugby franchise)
• Lions (Super Rugby franchise) → Lions (rugby franchise)
• Sharks (Super Rugby) → Sharks (rugby franchise)

– These are all the names of rugby teams in Super Rugby that must be disambiguated. There is no correct regional qualifier for any of them so they need a disambiguating word or phrase. My reading of WP:NCDAB seems to suggest (rugby) "avoid proper nouns" and "choose whichever is simpler". However there are other rugby teams under most of these designations so "Super Rugby" may be justified to prevent any possible confusion with Cardiff Blues, Exeter Chiefs, Sale Sharks etc. Personally I would prefer rugby team or rugby franchise as that makes it clearer what they are, but am really just hoping something could be decided upon to keep the article titles more consistent. Looking at some histories they seem to have moved all over the place,[3][4] but I have been unable to find a centralised discussion or convincing arguments in the edit summaries one way or the other. So I am starting one here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion at here in 2007, but nothing really came of it. AIRcorn (talk)

The Australian Super Rugby franchises are still known primarily under their region names (Queensland, New South Wales etc) so under that precedent might their regional names, Auckland, Waikato, Natal etc) be more appropriate purely for disambiguation purposes? --Falcadore (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about South Africa, but the New Zealand franchises combine areas beyond their major region. The Highlanders contain a lot of players who represent Southland, the Chiefs area includes Bay of Plenty, Counties etc (see Super Rugby#Teams). Also the local media virtually never refers to the "Crusaders" as the "Canterbury Crusaders" anymore. Australian teams tend to be confined to a single state and as was brought up at the Queensland Reds talk page some are continuations of the state teams. Brumbies is a notable exception as it also includes Southern New South Wales. AIRcorn (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My view is that as per WP:NCDAB we simply have the 'Name (rugby)' option. Seems superfluous to have franchise written there, and if we start adding superfluous information where do we stop? (rugby union franchise), (professional rugby union franchise), etc. Keeps it simple having just 'rugby', and allows people to readily distinguish between the article on a rugby team, and the primary article - someone is clearly going to know it isn't about the crusades, or blues music, or hurricanes. - Shudde ^talk 03:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A common disambig in parenthesis is warranted. However, I would suggest the name of the sport, rugby union to disambig from league. --Bob247 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Just want to make clear to the closer that my main aim is to keep the disambiguations consistent and have no problem with rugby, rugby union or any other that gains consesnsus. Out of those two leaning toward rugby union, as that would be more consistent with how many players are disambiguated. AIRcorn (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Requested moves

Regarding the requested moves above - I do agree with Aircorn's comments - "so 'Super Rugby' may be justified to prevent any possible confusion". The new naming conventions are assuming that Super Rugby will remain the only competition operating franchises. I do feel that it would make more sense to use "Teamname (Super Rugby franchise)" as the naming convention in order to avoid us having to redo this exercise again in future. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My main goal was to have some sort of consistency across the teams. I am happy with rugby union. Unless the sport changes its name it will not need to be changed in the future. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree about having consistency. I just think that while we're looking at moving these pages, we might as well rename them to something that is unlikely to ever be ambiguous in future - since there are teams with similar names in the Premiership in England, for example, I would suggest we indicate these are Super Rugby teams/franchises.TheMightyPeanut (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, I misread your above statement. The consensus (although clear) was weak in the previous move and if you wish to open another requested move I would not oppose it. I am however happy with the current situation so would not necessarily support it either. The conflicting premiership games are currently prefixed by Cardiff, Sale and Exeter so there is no real concern readers will stumble upon the wrong article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Team of the decade

Can someone please clarify the period this refers to? In the text Dan Carter is listed as a "notable exception" yet he is present in the team list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hir0cam (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone decided that they would just change a few players around depending on their opinion—rather than that of the "experts". As the paragraph above the text says it was printed in the Press on the eve of the 2005 final; so is only the team of that first decade, rather than an all time side. - Shudde ^talk 11:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Crusaders (rugby union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crfu.co.nz/main/index.cfm/1%2C363%2Chtml/The-Key-Moments-that-Mattered
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://xtramsn.co.nz/rugby/0%2C%2C12429-5333529%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planet-rugby.com/Story/0%2C18259%2C3562_1692051%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planet-rugby.com/Story/0%2C18259%2C3562_1692085%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910195640/http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0%2C25883%2C3824_2106336%2C00.html to http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0%2C25883%2C3824_2106336%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crfu.co.nz/main/index.cfm/1%2C366%2Chtml/What-s-in-a-name
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708150601/http://www.christchurchcvb.com/ to http://www.christchurchcvb.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726220112/http://www.amistadium.co.nz/ami_stadium/venue_overview to http://www.amistadium.co.nz/ami_stadium/venue_overview
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10702685
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sarugby.com/news/News/article/sid%3D4379.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irb.com/EN/Tournaments%2Band%2BEvents/IRB%2BAwards/awards%2Brelease.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728051039/http://www.crusaders.co.nz/news/hewett-is-new-crusaders-assistant-coach/439/news.aspx to http://www.crusaders.co.nz/news/hewett-is-new-crusaders-assistant-coach/439/news.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crusaders (rugby union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926224921/http://www.keo.co.za/2006/02/21/mauger-slams-melbourne-move/ to http://www.keo.co.za/2006/02/21/mauger-slams-melbourne-move/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Featured article concerns

Looking at this one as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. This article has not been thoroughly updated, and the coverage of post-2011 is too thin. Additionally, some uncited text has accreted over time. This one needs some work to get up to the featured article criteria, or a featured article review may have to occur. Hog Farm _Talk 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Maori name

I'll just leave this here for others, since I was <reverted> for unconstructive edit and possible vandalism for removing it:
The Māori term does not appear to bring any results (new or otherwise) on Google in relation to rugby. It does bring results, but as the name of a person - which appears unrelated to rugby.

The term and the citation was added in January by a now blocked sock account in this edit: diff:1135529123. And while the sock did do other edits to other pages that don't appear bad, the addition of this term is still suspect. – 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:F4A3:CBC5:B217:C28E (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the supposed Māori version of the name does not seem to appear even a single time in the official website. – 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:F4A3:CBC5:B217:C28E (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - I seem to recall going down a similar rabbit hole at some point but can't recall whether it was for the Crusaders or a different team. It seems like a bizarre thing for something like Te Aka to just make up, but given the recent rebranding and greater adoption of te ao Māori into the club's identity I would've assumed that Whatumoana would show up somewhere if it were the te reo name. Turnagra (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've found a couple of other sources; Scotty Morrison gives it as the Māori name in Maori at Home, and the Māori language news show Te Karere uses the name in this 2012 clip. But agree that it's weird that it doesn't show up anywhere else; I wouldn't expect to have to go digging for the Māori name like this, particularly in the context of the recent rebranding noted by Turnagra. So... I'm not sure that takes us very far. Chocmilk03 (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I'd count that as three reliable sources for that being the Māori name, which is enough for me. It's still bizarre that it's so seemingly obscure though. Turnagra (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, in that case I've removed the "Unreliable source?" template I had initially added to the current citation. No reason left to suspect that the term is a hoax anymore either, even if it is obscure. Thanks for the help. – 2804:F14:80D1:3501:D9DF:DD9E:6742:6EC0 (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)