Talk:2006 Super 14 season

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rugby union Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I see some attendace figures have been added. Could you please link the site where you pulled these figures from under extrenal links or what ever is at the bottom of the page. Cheers, --Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odds table

I was wondering if the section at the start about the odds to win the tournament should be put in a section or in a small table showing the top four to win the tournament? Lummie 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work pretty well now that the table includes current points and standings. Perhaps the title should be changed? Lisiate 20:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure that Odds, betting and so on should be in an encyclopedia ? I think that it should be deleted, it would be interesting to know what other contributors think about that. Dingy 09:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the table was put in was because people kept updating the odds on the front page. Primarily the odds gave people who looked up the page an idea of the best teams and in a way the form of the team. As for the whether its needed, many pages related to sports events commonly use odds as a way for people to gauge who is favourite to win. I remember people kept updating the Super Bowl page this year with the odds of who was going to win. Lummie 11:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from a country (France) where people do not bet on sport games, that's why it looks strange to me. We rely mainly on the standings to see who is the favourite. Dingy 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that the standings are not used to display some form of favouritism, but in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and certain others, sports betting is frequently used as a guide to preview tournaments, matches etc. As I said it gave people who visited the page an idea of who was favourite to win. Lummie 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South African Relegation Table

A few things on the newly created SA Relegation table

1 - Does the points tally need to be changed? I don't understand why the Cheetahs have 20 points or what the deal with it is?

2 - Im just wondering should the Odds and the Relegation table be placed below the statistics for the leading try and points scorers

Thanks Lummie 05:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those points were typos, fixed now. --Hamedog^Talk|@

Not a problem, would have fixed them myself but wasn't sure if I was missing something. Thanks! --Lummie 13:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New table for each round

I saw the new table that Mike2680 put in the article I was just wondering if it should be used for all the other rounds or it should be reverted back? While I don't think it looks bad I think if it is kept the report part should be removed as its for one site and I think its more publicity for rugby.com.au than neccessary.

Any other thoughts? Lummie 02:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to edit back the week 1 box that Mike2680 put in and revert the edits. I thought it would be better to decide on whether the box should be added on the talk page than leaving it on the main page. So here it is --Lummie 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home team	Score	Away team	Score	Ground	Crowd	Date	Report
Auckland Blues	19	Wellington Hurricanes	37 (1 BP)	Eden Park	35,200	February 10	rugby.com.au
Western Force	10	ACT Brumbies	25	Subiaco Oval	37,037	February 10	rugby.com.au
Central Cheetahs	18	Bulls	30 (1 BP)	Free State Stadium	37,383	February 10	rugby.com.au
Canterbury Crusaders	38 (1 BP)	Otago Highlanders	15	Jade Stadium	28,000	February 11	rugby.com.au
Queensland Reds	12 (1 BP)	NSW Waratahs	16	Suncorp Stadium	38,947	February 11	rugby.com.au
Cats	12	Stormers	23	Ellis Park Stadium	27,997	February 11	rugby.com.au
Sharks	30	Waikato Chiefs	21	Kings Park Stadium	26,512	February 11	rugby.com.au

IMO I think the boxes are a better format, and linking the reports adds to the experience of reflecting back on the season. If you can find other sources for the match reviews, feel free - it was not an attempt to plug the rugby website.

I didn't get a chance do do all the rounds in that format, and if people think the text version that is currently there is better and easier to read, then that's fine. I would be happy to format all rounds if people like the tables (i was rather hoping people would help me). I would be dissappointed if it was reverted based on the reasoning of giving outside links though.

Cheers. Mike2680 09:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, to be honest I think the format looks pretty good and having the icons makes it easier to read. No I didn't revert the table because of the links but more because it looked out of place having this one box.

As with any major change in format, I thought that people could decide and then it would be restored if anyone else enjoyed it so don't take it as being removed because of the links. The reason I thought removing the links was so that updating the table was more simple and to have to find reports might make it a bit difficult.

If you decide to put it in, a few thoughts that I thought would make it a bit better in addition to removing the report links.

1 - I think having the date put at the start of each row. Plus adding the day of week so it reads something like Fri 15 May or something like that.

2 - I tried experimenting but I couldn't find a way to do it but having a seperate color for the team that wins, so instead of just having the name of the team in bold writing but having their box in a different color. To have it stand out to see who won.

But hey if no one responds to this then I say go ahead and start editing!

Lummie 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I did a bit of editing and this was the idea I had for the table. It may be worth having the report thing but take a look. Lummie 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Home team	Score	Away team	Score	Ground	Crowd
Fri Feb 10	Auckland Blues	19	Wellington Hurricanes	37 (1 BP)	Eden Park	35,200
Fri Feb 10	Western Force	10	ACT Brumbies	25	Subiaco Oval	37,037
Fri Feb 10	Central Cheetahs	18	Bulls	30 (1 BP)	Free State Stadium	37,383
Sat Feb 11	Canterbury Crusaders	38 (1 BP)	Otago Highlanders	15	Jade Stadium	28,000
Sat Feb 11	Queensland Reds	12 (1 BP)	NSW Waratahs	16	Suncorp Stadium	38,947
Sat Feb 11	Cats	12	Stormers	23	Ellis Park Stadium	27,997
Sat Feb 11	Sharks	30	Waikato Chiefs	21	Kings Park Stadium	26,512

Thanks Lummie, I would be happy to do the busy work of finding match reports for each game. I like your idea of darkening the box of the winning teams - As for the date, personal preference here, I think the standard 10 February is the way to go. I think I remember reading somewhere that the proper way to reference dates on Wikipedia is like that, rather than abbreviating to Feb, Apr, Oct - I could be wrong, memory is a little sketchy.

What I could do is make up the tables in the discussion page (when I can sneak a bit of time at work), and then when it's all updated and current we could move the format to the main page. Mike2680 01:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also - do you know where we can get crowd figures? They aren't easily obtainable.

The only reason I put the Fri Sat etc. was simply it was easier to see what day of the week it was being played. Certainly we can leave it with just the date, but I think leaving the date on the left would be easier. As for abbreviating it was more that it took up to much room with Friday, Saturday. So tried just abbreviating but again its not a big issue.

So I will help start updating, and as for crowd figures I asked Cvene64 as he updated them to begin with. He said that he used Google news but yeah I haven't had much luck finding them either. Lummie 06:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

planetrugby.com does good match reports- perhaps you could link to these. I just found this page- it's an awesome effort! Ronan.evans 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awesome effort Lummie - looks great. Sorry that I haven't been able to help update i've been away the past week, but I will keep an eye out for these crowds. Mike2680 04:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Took a bit of time, but once I got the hang of it, everything fell into place. Don't worry if you can't find the crowd figures. They are tough to find. Lummie 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Waikato and other prefixes for all teams apart from the Western Force. That is how they are generally refered too. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure whether its right to remove the first name of some of the teams. I know the South African teams for sure all go by their first name, but most of the Australian teams and some of the NZ teams are still refered to by their first two names. I'll give you Waikato but the Crusaders are constantly called the Canterbury Crusaders. I think its more that the commentators use the one name to make it easier to call the teams rather than constantly the NSW Waratahs or the Queensland Reds. Lummie 02:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Look at the Crusaders wiki page. "The Crusaders (formerly the Canterbury Crusaders)" - enough evidence? --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because their name is the Crusaders doesn't mean they are sometimes still referred to as the Canterbury Crusaders. However I am not against the name change Im just not sure whether they need to be changed. If you want to please go ahead and change them but I would suggest then changing all of them or reverting the ones that have been changed for symmetry and to avoid confusion. Lummie 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger logo icons for Week by week?

I was curious to know whether the logo icons that are next to each team should be increased for the week by week. I incresed them for the table and for the odds to win table but I am not sure if they are too big for each week by week.

Any thoughts? Lummie 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No change required - good size. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to draw too much attention to them, or else someone will come along and remove them for being an improper use of fair use images. :-) —Stormie 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly thought of doing it because it the same type of display for week by week was done on the Talk page of the NRL season 2006, and thought perhaps it might look good. Here is a comparison, just incase you want to want to see the difference. Lummie 09:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week 1 (40px icons)

Date	Time	Home team	Score	Away team	Score	Ground	Crowd
Friday February 10	1935	Blues	19	Hurricanes	37 (1 BP)	Auckland	35,200
Friday February 10	1905	Western Force	10	Brumbies	25	Perth	37,037
Friday February 10	1910	Cheetahs	18	Bulls	30 (1 BP)	Bloemfontein	37,383
Saturday February 11	1935	Crusaders	38 (1 BP)	Highlanders	15	Christchurch	28,000
Saturday February 11	1940	Reds	12 (1 BP)	Waratahs	16	Brisbane	38,947
Saturday February 11	1700	Cats	12	Stormers	23	Johannesburg	27,997
Saturday February 11	1910	Sharks	30	Chiefs	21	Durban	26,512

Week 1 (40px icons)

Top Four after one round
Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	F	A	+/-	BP	Pts
1	Crusaders	1	1	0	0	38	15	23	1	5
2	Hurricanes	1	1	0	0	37	19	18	1	5
3	Bulls	1	1	0	0	30	18	12	1	5
4	Brumbies	1	1	0	0	25	10	15	0	4

Week 1 (25px icons)

Date	Time	Home team	Score	Away team	Score	Ground	Crowd
Friday February 10	1935	Blues	19	Hurricanes	37 (1 BP)	Auckland	35,200
Friday February 10	1905	Western Force	10	Brumbies	25	Perth	37,037
Friday February 10	1910	Cheetahs	18	Bulls	30 (1 BP)	Bloemfontein	37,383
Saturday February 11	1935	Crusaders	38 (1 BP)	Highlanders	15	Christchurch	28,000
Saturday February 11	1940	Reds	12 (1 BP)	Waratahs	16	Brisbane	38,947
Saturday February 11	1700	Cats	12	Stormers	23	Johannesburg	27,997
Saturday February 11	1910	Sharks	30	Chiefs	21	Durban	26,512

Week 1 (25px icons)

Top Four after one round
Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	F	A	+/-	BP	Pts
1	Crusaders	1	1	0	0	38	15	23	1	5
2	Hurricanes	1	1	0	0	37	19	18	1	5
3	Bulls	1	1	0	0	30	18	12	1	5
4	Brumbies	1	1	0	0	25	10	15	0	4

Table Pos.

Could someone move these to the left of the names and logos please? I tried and failed!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA Status

Once the season is over, who wants to get this page up to FA status? --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 01:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to help, but (if anyone is interested) I have a few things off the top of my head that could certainly be improved:

I'd say, everysingle logo, except for the Super 14 one, would most likely have to be removed (including the first ladder). Don't shoot me! But people will fail the article on the grounds that copyright images are being used for decoration...
There is a lot of missing content, for example, there should be paragraphs regarding pre-season...notable events (retirements of players/coaches, doping, crowds..etc etc)
On the topic of crowds...They will (in order to get FA, in my opinon) have to be removed, as they are unsourced. I'am guilty of this, and whilst I could attribute the ones I contributed, they would all be from individual sources which would be a nightmare for referencing.
There is a lot of other stuff, like use of tables/what is and is not encyclepedic...etc
- These are just random ideas, not criticisms. But yeah, thought I would discuss it. p.s What a crazy final that was... Cvene64 13:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about going for FA at the Super 14 page? I think that would be a lot easier...?Cvene64 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work Everyone

Great work everyone for creating such a fantastic page. Pity to see it all over so soon. To 2007!

Improvement

You could add some more infomation on the final, see for example[1] Dingy 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create an Article on the final?

I was thinking the final probably deserves an article just because of the weather. We have the 2006 Champions League Final and the Australia in South Africa, 5th ODI, 2006 (400 cricket match) which are both recent, so why not create one on the final? --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 04:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially because of the weird conditions, it makes it very important. Cvene64 05:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name? 2006 Super 14 final? or 2006 Super 14 grand final, 2006 Super 14 season final? Redirect from Mist Match? (JJ) --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2006 Super 14 final is the most appropriate, and yeah, we should set up a few redirects as well. It should be a good article, as right now there is a lot of content available. Cvene64 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again!!

I see Ed g2s is at it again removing images. This time removing every image in sight from the page. Lummie 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we just revert what he did. Take a look at his talk page- he has clearly been doing this to other articles and people are becomeing very annoyed. I fail to see how this guy is admin! Obvoiusly the images are not used as decoration but as conveniant tools for locating information far more quickly than could otherwise be done. Ronan.evans 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does to this alot of pages, You may wish to join in at: Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it he/she removed every image, even those in the lead of the article, such as the 2006 logo and advert, which clearly are not decoration, as they are specific to this season. The same user also removed an image at Jonah Lomu which had a fair-use rationale/permission on its page. Cvene64 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to combine against this- hes done it to NRL as well as AFL. In the case of NRL hes removed historic logos as well which had nothing to do with decoration at all. Can someone try to get him blocked citing vandalism? Ronan.evans 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-season results

Does anyone have all the pre-season results? Cvene64 16:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure they can be found. I think we should covert this article to look like 2006 FIFA World Cup--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Super-14-TV.jpg

Image:Super-14-TV.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Super 14 logo.png

The image Image:Super 14 logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]