Crusaders (rugby union) is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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 written in
New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
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)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
HamedogTalk|@14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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]--
HamedogTalk|@07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk09:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
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.
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
Cvene6402:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Cvene6411:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk00:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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??--
HamedogTalk|@05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk10:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
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.----
HamedogTalk|@03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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). -
Shuddetalk03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
205.157.110.1123:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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.--
HamedogTalk|@08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
205.157.110.1101:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.--
HamedogTalk|@23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Jwillbur17:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Carom17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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".
125.173.61.8710:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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)..--
Cometstyles10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
125.173.61.8712:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Cla6803:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
Petercorless09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Survey - in opposition to the move
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.----
HamedogTalk|@01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Cvene6402:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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). -
Shuddetalk02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Rugger8113:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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. ~
trialsanderrors19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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 - OVER12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
205.157.110.1115:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
GordyB10:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
205.157.110.1114:00, 4 February 2007 (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.
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? --
Avenue02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Username02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
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:
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.
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.
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)reply
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.
– 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk03:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. -
Shuddetalk11:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply