This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of
Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles
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!
Projected team
IS that a)needed or b)found in an encyclopedia.?
Name change
This article's name really needs to be changed to the Blues, as the team ceased to be known as the "Auckland Blues" a number of years ago. Unfortunately I don't know how to do it, can someone help?
Eastpaw
Has a template fuckXX it all up? Apparently all older edits look that bad as well (with all the text in the sidebar, and the main space empty), which I consider unlikely.
MadMaxDog10:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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 NO CONSENSUS FOR MOVES, per discussion below. The discussion does not address the specific requests for Chiefs, Highlanders and Hurricanes in a way sufficient to determine consensus. Those supporting those moves should probably take those discussions to the individual pages. -
GTBacchus(
talk)21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keeps all the New Zealand
Super 14 teams inline with the
Crusaders articles. While moving the Blues article may be controversal, Chiefs is a redirect, Highlanders is a redirect and Hurricanes is a redirect. I feel that the latter three can all be moved and incase of a user looking for another article, have a header similar to the
Crusaders article. --
HamedogTalk|@13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Survey
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Oppose all these moves. IMO the rugby teams are not the primary use of these names, e.g. "Blues", that's definitely the music style.
Markussep15:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm very surprised that "Crusaders" is about a rugby team, and not a redirect to "Crusade". Anyone outside New-Zealand who reads "Crusaders" will think of the medieval religious wars, I think.
Markussep18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I think people in Australia, South Africa, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and to a lesser extent, the UK, Ireland, Argenitina, France and Italy will think of the rugby team.--
HamedogTalk|@04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Markussep, I gurantee anyone in Oceania typing in Crusaders would be looking for the rugby team, as would a lot of people in UK/Ireland/France and so on. The current set up for
Crusaders does no harm at all to people looking for other uses.
Cvene6407:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Actually, on second thought, I oppose the proposed move of the "Blues" articles and Support The Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders moves.--
HamedogTalk|@01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I think all the suggested names would need to be disambiguation pages. 'Blues' has many different meanings not related to rugby union or music.GordyB20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: I support the proposed compromise with The Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders moving with headers to the disambig pages. The Blues should stay where it is.
GordyB15:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for Blues, certainly, there is no way in the world that a rugby club is more significant and recognizable than the style of music. I doubt you could even persuade me to make
Blues a disambiguation page, let alone give it to the club and push Blues music off into a dabbed title. —
Stormie22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)reply
No strong feelings either way on the Chiefs/Highlanders/Crusaders moves - I think it's probably better that they are redirects to disambiguation pages (as
Chiefs and
Highlanders are at present), but I don't think the moves would be such a terrible think that I would actually oppose them. —
Stormie03:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Imo Crusaders should stay where it is. Just because the others have that title, Crusaders should not be moved to fit in line with the others.
Cvene6414:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Hurricanes I think we can use
Hurricanes as a rugby page. Its kind of annoying that the page redirects to
Tropical cyclone, when the rugby team could get 100% usage out of it. I support the move and then this: "This article is about the sports team. See
Tropical cyclone for the storm. For other uses, see
Hurricane (disambiguation)." That is reasonable imo. Being realistic, few people would type in Hurricanes when looking for Tropical cyclone (Hurricane), whereas the team is known only as the Hurricanes, and has no city/association, so I think it shold occupy the page with my suggestion disambig. at the top.
Cvene6407:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Are you opposed or neutral to the Highlanders and Chiefs moves then? These redirect to a disambiguation page, similar to the Crusaders page once did before being replaced by the rugby article. These articles are in the same boat as the Hurricanes, so why not move them?--
HamedogTalk|@07:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I think that it should be looked at on a case by case basis, but Blues would prob mean the music to most people. Chiefs i really don't know. Hurricanes i oppose as well, if i wanted to find out about the weather phenomenon then I would be annoyed if it directed here! Crusaders probably works because the page on medieval Crusaders would be found at Crusade or The Crusade. -
Shuddatalk09:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
What about Highlanders? Your oppose vote seems based on your decision of the Blues and Hurricanes article. Why can't the Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders articles be moved and have a notice similar to the
Crusaders article?--
HamedogTalk|@09:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I think the Highlanders going to the disambiguation page works fine for me. Like I said i don't know about Chiefs. However the only ones i feel strongly about are Hurricanes and Blues, they should definitely not be moved. -
Shuddatalk21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose Blues in particular, but really, all the others should have something more general at the main article page. --
Beardo01:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose. If you want to bring all your articles "in line", then perhaps you should move them all to "Team (rugby franchise)" or "Team (Super rugby franchise)", and leave the "Blues" to the music, "Crusaders" to the warriors, "Highlanders" to the Scots (including the kilted infantry) and "Hurricanes" to disambig between the rugby and hockey teams. --
SigPig07:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)reply
And moving Crusaders to Crusaders (Super rugby franchise) does no harm to a reader looking for your rugby teams. I seriously doubt that a rugby team (as opposed to mediaeval warriors) is what the majority of people search for when they look up the word "Crusaders". Moving "Crusaders" to be in line with the other teams (i.e. add the rugby disambig) is far less controversial than moving the other four to match "Crusaders" (which, IMHO, should not be there in the first place). --
SigPig11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I understand you line of argument but moving the teams means we don't have to have some ugly bracket at the end. Unlike most teams, the NZ Super 14 teams don't have a region in there name. Also you say most people will not be looking for the rugby team. Most people in the SANZAR nations will think of the rugby team, as well as many people in the UK, Ireland, the Pacific Islands etc.--
HamedogTalk|@11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)reply
"Most people in the SANZAR nations will think of the rugby team..." Do you have any evidence of that assertion? Because without said evidence, that assertion is no more valid than mine that most people won't be looking for a rugby team. Also: "...many people in the UK, Ireland, the Pacific Islands etc." I assume then that if many will, they do not constitute the majority (i.e. "most"), or you would have said so; I can comfortably surmise then that most people in the UK, Ireland, Pacific Islands, the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean, as well as any other people who are either anglophones or ESL in any other nation, will be looking for the primary meanings of those words (i.e. religious warriors, head honchos, music, and cyclones) in question above, not the rugby teams.
In addition, I don't think that getting rid of "ugly brackets" is sufficient grounds for such a contentious move. The only valid reason I can see for such a move is if something is the primary usage or meaning for such a term, but I do not think you have met the burden of proof on this issue. --
SigPig21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)reply
A lot of people will be looking for Crusaders - look at their success over the years. Probably one of the world's most successful sporting teams in the last 10 years and probably rugby's most successful team. That's my evidence for why people will be looking for it.--
HamedogTalk|@03:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I see your point about the Chiefs and the Hurricanes, but you have given a bad example. Most teams are called the XX YY where XX is the place and YY is the "nickname". The Blues, Crusaders, Chiefs, Highlanders and Hurricanes don't have this luxury.--
HamedogTalk|@06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Add any additional comments:
I believe that the
Chiefs,
Highlanders and
Hurricanes redirects should be occupied by the rugby teams so they are inline with the Crusaders. If somebody is look for another topic, we can have a notice at the top of the page, as in the Crusaders article.--
HamedogTalk|@04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
There seems to be no concensus at all for any of the moves so how about we don't bother? This all seems rather trivial to me anyway. -
Shuddatalk21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)reply
This is obviously going to fail. I am just going to put seperate requested moves on Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders when this finishes because people are just looking at the Blues move and voting oppose.--
HamedogTalk|@04:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Blues (rugby union) →
Blues (Super Rugby) – The current name is ambiguous, since there is a rugby union team in Wales called
Cardiff Blues. A hatnote is not enough in this situation, since there is no evidence to suggest that the term "Blues" would be primarily used to search for the New Zealand franchise rather than the Welsh region. –
PeeJay08:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)reply
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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on
Blues (Super Rugby). 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:
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.