Talk:Blues (Super Rugby)

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. MadMaxDog 10:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

• • Blues (rugby team) → Blues
  • Chiefs (Super rugby franchise) → Chiefs
  • Highlanders (Super rugby franchise) → Highlanders
  • Hurricanes (Super rugby franchise) → Hurricanes

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. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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. Markussep 15:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All the other ones are actually redirects. Why can't they be moved in a similar manner to the way the Crusaders article was?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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.Markussep 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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. Cvene64 07:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support all moves and move the current Blues article to Blues music--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, on second thought, I oppose the proposed move of the "Blues" articles and Support The Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders moves.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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.GordyB 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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.GordyB 15:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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. —Stormie 22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. —Stormie 03:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, this isn't about moving the Crusaders page, its about moving the Chiefs, Hurricanes and Higlanders so they are inline with the Crusaders article.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 04:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd be more inclined to move Crusaders to Crusaders (Super rugby franchise) to be honest. —Stormie 08:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • 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. Cvene64 14:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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. Cvene64 07:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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. - Shudda ^talk 09:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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. - Shudda ^talk 21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Blues in particular, but really, all the others should have something more general at the main article page. -- Beardo 01:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the Hurricanes, Chiefs and Highlanders? Why can't they be moved in a similar fashion to the Crusaders article?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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. --SigPig 07:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Making the Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders like the Crusaders does no harm to a reader looking for other information.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • 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). --SigPig 11:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • 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.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
        • "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. --SigPig 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I support only Highlanders. "Blues" definitely refers to the music style among others; "Chiefs" can refer to Kansas City Chiefs; and "Hurricanes" can also refer to the tropical cyclone or to Miami Hurricanes. PoccilScript 06:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 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.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• 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. - Shudda ^talk 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just realised Blues is a FA, may struggle to sell renaming it and replacing it with this article. - Shudda ^talk 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 04:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother for Hurricanes, I can't see how that would succeed. - Shudda ^talk 04:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It redirects to Tropical cyclone.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 04:53, 16 October 2006 (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.

Logo

Why is the old logo on the page now? SHrugbyfan 09:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Maps of the franchise encachment areas would enhance the article. Chainz 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crusaders (rugby) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Players In/Out

I would strongly recommend the "players in/out" section gets moved to page 2012 Blues (rugby union) season. That way a permanent history of it is kept and it's not overwritten every season by the player movements for the current season. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)

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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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. – PeeJay 08:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support and replace with a dab page. noq (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as above - upper case is correct. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but to lower case i.e. Blues (super rugby) --Bob247 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why lower case? The organisation to which the Blues franchise belongs is Super Rugby. – PeeJay 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but to upper case as suggested. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019195839/http://www.chiefs.co.nz/news/chiefs-sign-anscombe.html to http://www.chiefs.co.nz/news/chiefs-sign-anscombe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126083741/http://www.theblues.co.nz/News/2012-10-31/Blues-squad-announced-for-2013.aspx to http://www.theblues.co.nz/News/2012-10-31/Blues-squad-announced-for-2013.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130212012833/http://www.theblues.co.nz/News/2012-4-20/Gary-Whetton-elected-as-new-Blues-chairman.aspx to http://www.theblues.co.nz/News/2012-4-20/Gary-Whetton-elected-as-new-Blues-chairman.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11259913

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) 07:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Team split

Will there be any consideration or discussion in the future about splitting the women's team from the main page? --Tamariki (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)