Talk:All Blacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	All Blacks is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 10, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 20, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

WikiProject Echo has identified All Blacks as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

	All Blacks is part of WikiProject Rugby union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Rugby union. If you would like to participate, you can edit All Blacks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and view a list of open tasks
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article was the WikiProject Rugby union collaboration of the fortnight (21 Dec 06 - 16 Jan 07). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.

	All Blacks is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	To-do list for All Blacks:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Pending tasks Add references Very important Expand history Add more images Break article into seperate pages, linking using {{main article}} De-list notable players Expand record sections Improve Lead section (as per WP:LEAD) Add Current squad section Add coaches section Resources Player info at allblacks.com Match statistics at allblacks.com Rugby football history New Zealand rugby museum

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in January 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Archives /Archive 1

Contents 1 History section 2 Some say that the All Blacks greatest opponent is their own legacy 3 Removed Advertising 4 Oddity - two tests lost on same day 5 Current team 6 Change colours 7 Photos 8 GA Passing 9 Peer review 10 What exactly constitutes a Grand Slam Tour? 11 Fixtures 12 Notable players 13 The lead 14 Current Squad 15 Nominated for Featured Article 16 The All Blacks 17 1976 boycott 18 Article name note 19 Blank ref

[edit] History section

I think we should try and make the history section more chronological. Just reading it, it jumps from the Sout African rivalry back to the 1880s and the development of a legacy. Allblacks91 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at doing some edits to it today I agree. It goes from talking about South Africa in 1921, 1937, 1956 and 1996 to talking about the 1888 tour by the British Isles in the next paragraph. I propose that the history section be rewritten in a more chronological manner. For someone unfamiliar with the All Blacks it would be terribly confusing as is. - Shudda ^talk 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

\ More info on the World XV matches would be good.

[edit] Some say that the All Blacks greatest opponent is their own legacy

Removed "Some say that the All Blacks greatest opponent is their own legacy." 'Some say' makes this statement inappropriate. If someone has a quote from someone notiible that says something similar, then by all means add it. Eg. 'Former All Black Joe Blogs once remarked that the All Black's greatest opponent is their legacy' (cited reference). But for now I think the statement should be removed. Shudda ^talk 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I must say I have seen/heard that saying numerous times. I think it definantly should be mentioned somewhere in the article, as the saying has been used in many books/DVDs and so on.Cvene64 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As Shudda says, this needs to be sourced. If it has been said so often, what are these "many books/DVDs and so on"?? Hippo43 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hippo, what I meant was that phrase (maybe not word-for-word) is suggested in some readings/media I have come across, but I could not tell you for sure, unless I found them again. For what it is worth, I found this googling:

I know for a fact that there is no opposition as intimidating as your opponent’s legacy. When you play against the All Blacks, you’re going up against a team that has a 74% win record over the past 104 years, the most sensational winning percentage in all of global sport. [1]

However it is pretty POV, but if referenced, I guess the article could reflect upon this type of notion..? Cvene64 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's POV, however you are right that it could possibly be included but I think it would have to be a quote from someone notable, e.g. an ex All Black or ex AB's coach. I think if it were to come from someone who hadn't been directly involved in an AB's team it would not be credible. - Shudda ^talk 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Advertising

The manufacturer of the jersey is relatively unimportant except as advertising, it was prominently mentioned twice within a few sentences and included detail. I removed it. I must apologize, for some reason it logged me out when I saved from preview so the post appears anonymous. Digitalblister 11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Adidas is actually pretty important as it is one of the few things on the shirt! and the silver fern.

[edit] Oddity - two tests lost on same day

How come this info is under its own heading? Doesnt anyone think it should be in the history section? Its only a handful of lines, and looks kind of random/scrappy/out of place right now. Cvene64 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%.GordyB 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. It logically immediately follows the Record and Overall (records) subheadings. If it was ever going to look out of place it would be up near the top in the history section. Moriori 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, it does seem strange to have it there. It might seem logical but it doesn't read well. It does look a bit scappy, i think it could be incorporated into the history section. - Shudda ^talk 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Moriori, I just don't think it deserves its own section, I mean, how much can possibly be written about it? Cvene64 07:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You originally criticised it because it was "a handful of lines and looks kind of random/scrappy/out of place". Now you wonder how much can possibly be written about it. What? What exactly are you on about? Nothing more can be written about it. Nothing more needs to be written about it. It is concise, accurate, all encompassing and informative. It is a true oddity, a quite amazing record unique to the ABs. It justifies it own little mention because of all of those reasons. WTF is wrong with that? Moriori 07:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Err mate, calm down. I can have as many criticisms as I wish. If little can be written about it, then obviously its notability to demand its own heading is dubious. Im a huge rugby fan, and I have not really ever heard of it, only really through the wiki article. Thats not to say it is not notable, but I thought it may have been written in by an Aussie or something, and noone took any notice of it, and it just stayed there. What am I on about? I thought having a few lines about one event did not look too good, and I had my doubts if it deserved its own heading. Unless its notability (to uphold its own heading or sub-heading) can be proven, I think it should be merged. Why? Because it looks stupid and out of place. And I dont know what your problem is (Some people apparently prefer large chunks of text...?) I consider it a style issue more than anything. Cvene64 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to have criticisms, but stick to facts. I neither wrote nor inferred anything remotely like "little can be written about it". I said it already "is concise, accurate, all encompassing and informative," and nothing more "can be" or "needs to be" written about it. Moriori 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current team

I think we should list out the current team like the notable players section is done, as the box always appears hidden due to there being more than one of those types of templates...Narrasawa 09:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• It would be nice but given the large squads these days it would be a nightmare keeping it all up to date. Lisiate 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure what is being asked for here, but I'm going to change it. It is no good to anyone if we can't see it. There are only about two or three ABs squads every year, so the most current squad should be listed, it seems to work fine on a lot of the other pages. I'm going to add the November squad. Cvene64 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change colours

In the graphic - The change colours - I'm fairly sure the socks are black, not white? IE the only difference is that the Jersey is white. COuldn't be 100% sure, but thought i'd mention it. ElectricRay 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest when was the last time the ABs wore a white strip? Are there any images on the net or anything? Cheers. Cvene64 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually when they play Scotland in New Zealand. In World Cups in a third country I think one of the teams is designated the 'Home' team at random. I can't remember the most recent tour by Scotland. NZ last played Scotland in a world cup in the 1999 quarterfinals. Lisiate 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Thanks for the information. Cvene64 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Hi I was using Flickr to check out some photos that could be used for this article, maybe someone could upload some of them if anyone thinks it would look good: (NZ/ENG @ Twickenham), (NZ/AUS @ ?), (Haka v ENG). Theres not much, but maybe you can zoom in on the Haka and (cut it out) and use in place of the copyright image, as the less copyright images the better yer?.-(Rugbeefan)

[edit] GA Passing

Honestly, I can't think of anything wrong with this article. It's brilliantly sourced, unlike any article I've seen before. It covers the subject very well, well written and the little things (like "Refs" comming after the punctuation) are all in order. I'd send this to FAC ASAP. But that's just my opinion. Good Work everyone

†he Bread 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Nothing wrong? - Shudda ^talk 01:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I've submitted the article for a peer-review, please go to WP:PR and leave comments if people suggest improvements. This is important if we want to get this article to FA status. - Shudda ^talk 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly constitutes a Grand Slam Tour?

It is mentioned in the history section that the All Blacks narrowly missed out on a Grand Slam tourin 1972/73 by drawing with Ireland. But if I remember correctly, they lost to France in that very same tour. So did a Grand Slam mean beating just England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, or all the teams in the 5 nations tournament? Tomos ANTIGUA Tomos 13:26, 03 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked that the 1972 tour was not a grand slam. The articles claims that this was due to a draw with Ireland. A grand slam is wins over England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. France is not part of it. See Grand Slam (Rugby Union).GordyB 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixtures

Numerous users made comments that the fixtures/results section should go (see Peer Review). It is fine to have them on other national team articles, but some users are working towards making the All Blacks a Featured Article, and it was thought that a list of current events was not appropriate. I imagine that if the Irish/Springboks articles were going through the same process, the same thing would happen. If you have other thoughts, please discuss them here...cheers. 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cvene64 (talk • contribs).

The upcoming fixture information is mostly in 2007 Tri Nations Series and 2007 Rugby World Cup, which will become permanent records of those games after the fact. If we create an article for All Blacks 2007 May/June Tests or some such, everything will be recorded without cluttering up the All Blacks article. --Stormie 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable players

This needs to be delisted. I have written a summary of the Inductees into the International Rugby Hall of Fame here. Please have a look and comment on it. Another section can be written for major record holders, however this could maybe be separate. Comments? - Shudda ^talk 09:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Spencer??? - Poppa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poppa quirke (talk • contribs).

The reason for ony adding International Rugby Hall of Fame members is it is otherwise very subjective (and POV). So the list will probably be restricted to members of the Hall of Fame and also record holders. I'm hoping for comments on what I've written rather then who is considered notable. - Shudda ^talk 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is better than before ... I know its still POV but shouldn't players such as Jonah Lomu or Christian Culled be added (there are many more of course), considering Jonah was considered the sports first "global superstar" and Cullen holds the NZ record for test tries. --ET....I love you 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff :). That is a much better way than just a list. Great job. I think it is fine as it is, otherwise pov gets out of control...but yeah record holders (Lomu and Spencer I guess) can be written about as well. But yeah, it looks really great, this article gets better everytime I see it. Narrasawa 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is mention of Jonah in the Rugby World Cup section, because he holds a record there. Someone can add a records section to players, that can discuss record holders. So record try scorers, point scorers etc etc. Needs to be done carefully though. The list would need to be kept reasonably short, unfortunately with over 1000 previous All Blacks we just can't mention everyone that we think deserves it!!! - Shudda ^talk 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be called "former player" with a link to List of All Blacks via {{main}}--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that would be easy enough - Shudda ^talk 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

I think we need to get the lead sorted out first, it currently reads like this:

All Blacks is the name of New Zealand's national rugby union team. Rugby union is New Zealand's national sport and hence All Blacks selection is considered a high honour. The All Blacks are a formidable power in international rugby union, possessing a winning record against all rugby nations. As well as winning the Rugby World Cup in 1987 they have been Tri Nations champions seven times (in the 11 year history of the tournament) and have twice (in 1978 and in 2005) completed a Grand Slam (wins over England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland) tour of the Home nations. They are also current holders of the Bledisloe Cup, contested annually against Australia. They are currently the number-one ranked team in the world.[1]They are also the 2006 International Rugby Board (IRB) Team of the Year.[2] Their name dates from the first tour of the United Kingdom by a New Zealand national rugby team, the Originals, in 1905–1906. According to Billy Wallace, one of the members of the Originals, a London newspaper said the New Zealanders played as if they were "all backs". [3] Wallace claimed that due to a typographical error, subsequent references were to "All Blacks". This is likely myth however, as the name also describes their playing uniform of black shirts, shorts and socks.[3] Block quote

From WP:LEAD, notably, it says The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. and...

• In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article.
• The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.
• A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead.

• Ideas/suggestions:
  • The section needs to be at least three paragraphs in my opinion
  • It could be broken up like this

First paragraph could be a general introduction (NZ national team, played since 1903, what they compete in etc etc)

Second could be an overview of All Blacks-specific notable information...They wear all black, the performance of the haka, the name...

Third could be why the are notable (winning record, ranking, hown many hall of famers etc)

• • The idea of relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article needs to be applied to the section on the name in the lead. Most of that info should be written in All_Blacks#International_competition_begins instead.
  • Also, there should not be such an emphasis on current events...The All Black are the current holders of this, this, winners of this etc...
• What does everyone else think..? Cvene64 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of that however I don't think there is too much of an emphasis on current holders of what etc. The fact that they are IRB team of the year is very important, as is their rank and the fact that they hold the Bledisloe Cup. You may want to do the rewrite yourself Cvene64 as you have a good idea of how this should be written. - Shudda ^talk 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made alterations as per your suggestions. Could people please take a look at the Lead and give me some feedback. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Squad

I've added the current squad section..

Someone might want to check its suitable and correct before it gets crossed off.. Alistairlp 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked it and added a reference. Also changed Autumn internations to November Tests as it's Spring in NZ when they take place (I think calling them the Autumn internationals is a bad idea on wikipedia). Good work for adding them though. - Shudda ^talk 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it something you are interested in for the english version, I did it for the french version.

Other players can also be mentionned below the figure. Dingy 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with this. One is that it will need to be updated after every test. The next is that it doesn't give any information about their position and province. For non Rugby fans knowing the number will not be enough, having a wiki-link to their position gives them something to look up though. - Shudda ^talk 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

it does not have to be updated after each test, (in the French versin) it is completed by a list of other players who recently played test matchs (in november). A team is more than 15 players anyway, for example Piri Weepu is in the added list. As you have seen there are links for each players, so all information about the provinces ... can be found easily and are updated. Up to you, you could have both the present table and a typical team for test matchs. Dingy 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for Featured Article

I have submitted All Blacks for FAC. You can read comments (and respond to them) here. - Shudda ^talk 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The All Blacks

This article has a lot of potential : congratulations to be a featured article... We try to make some featured articles in fr.wikipedia and we like your article. And we expect that fr:Équipe de Nouvelle-Zélande de rugby à XV will have the same result as fr:Coupe du monde de rugby à XV or maybe fr:Tournoi des six nations. So, you can very proud about your contributions. Dd Dd 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1976 boycott

Should this article mention that several African countries boycotted the 1976 Olympic Games because the All Blacks played against South Africa? And more on the 1981 Springbok Tour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.72.98 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

The problem with mentioning that is that this is really only an overview of All Blacks history. At some point, when I get time, I'll created the article All Blacks history. When that is created we can go into a lot more detail. There is a lot more info on both the 1976 Olympic Boycott and the 81 Tour in 1981 Springbok Tour. Which is linked in the article. Also, much of the 81 Tour stuff isn't just about the All Blacks, but also the provincial games (which falls outside the scope of this article). - Shudda ^talk 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name note

I think a note needs to be put at the top of this page explaining why this article is called All Blacks and not New Zealand national rugby union team. Buc 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? - Shudda ^talk 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's something people need to know. So they don't try to change it. Buc 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

<!--You can add comments to pages like this by putting text between these unusual brackets. The text can be seen by anybody editing the page but not by anybody viewing the page. It is good if a particular part of an article keeps getting changed. But I don't see this as a problem in this instance.-->GordyB 14:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If people start trying to move the page then you are definitely right that we should add a comment. However that edit war ended some time ago, and now that the article is FA, and a bit more stable, it probably won't happen again. If it does then someone should add the comment, but someone who would move a page without posting a question at the talk page is likely to ignore the comment anyway! - Shudda ^talk 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blank ref

Reference number 90 is blank. Aaron Bowen 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it.-gadfium 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)