![]() | A news item involving 2009 British & Irish Lions tour to South Africa was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 July 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why are there links to the national sides in the tables when the heading clearly states Home union. This makes no sense, especially when there are and will be players listed who have not played for the national side they are linked to but are affiliated with a union. -- Bob ( talk) 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted to a single table listing every player selected, with notes explaining their circumstances. I can't see much point to having a 'current squad' list which will change all the time. Wikipedia is not a news service. After the tour this would just reflect those players left standing at the end. IMO, we should have one squad list - separating the squad into 'current players' and 'withdrawals' is unnecessary commentary. -- hippo43 ( talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the IRFU isn't used against the players from Ireland rather than leaving them flagless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatgonzo ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted to a smaller team list format for the 1st Test. To me, the layout with vertical lists with a giant field diagram in the middle was a breach of WP:NPOV, in that it gave undue weight to the teams for this game. It took up almost the entire page view in my browser, and had as much space as four of the other games. The article has to proportionately reflect coverage in reliable sources, and it clearly didn't in this case. Why such a focus on Tests over the non-international games? I don't believe this emphasis is reflected in the sources. Moreover, the article will become very ugly and unwieldy if we end up with three of these lists for the Tests. I'm interested in what others think. -- hippo43 ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Been observing the article develop over the last month or so and a few things spring to mind:
Right, that's it, sorry that I haven't actually got stuck into the article but am suggesting major changes. Unfortunately I don't have time to make major edits all that frequently, and stuff like this should be mooted on the talk page first anyway. Right, discuss... HornetMike ( talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been playing around with the stats list, and here's how it could look (will remove at a later date to stop clutter). Think it looks alright, no idea how to make it sortable though: HornetMike ( talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Key
The pitch thing in the first test Fixture section looks really ugly, and hard to read in my opinion. I'm going to be bold and remove it. I have also noticed that it is not in any of the past tours. Alan16 ( talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to make things awkward and say that I like the graphic, and think the page will look fine when all three tests are done. It's a nice quick reference point to see which players line up along which, no it isn't strictly necessary, but no more necessary than a table displaying all the points scorers. The 2008 Tri Nations uses a similar graphic - although the page has been edited as of the time of this post and looks horrendous, but did look fine before. If we are actually going to remove the graphic, find a way to not leave a big empty white space in between the player lineup, as that would be far worse. Swiss09 ( talk) 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hippo - if seeing who is playing against who is the only reason for keeping it, then it shouldn't be kept. As Hippo said, you can look across the team lists. And since when has rugby been a one-on-one game? Rugby is a team game. Alan16 ( talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As there has been no response here on the issue of policy, I've removed these graphics, in line with WP:NPOV. As well as giving undue weight to the lineups, they are not accurate diagrams of how any rugby team I've ever seen lines up. -- hippo43 ( talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/RSA-LIO 2009-06-20.svg/350px-RSA-LIO 2009-06-20.svg.png Is incorrect SA give their blindside flanker the number 7 and their openside 6 Burger is actually an openside, do the research if you don't believe me. Juan Smith is the blindside for the Boks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.209.35 ( talk • contribs)
Does someone know of a format for a statistics table like lineouts won, missed tackles, penalties conceded etc...? Please add it! -- 41.145.67.219 ( talk) 13:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am being bold and putting in something like I am suggesting. Comments/improvements...? -- Sahmejil ( talk) 20:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks kind of weird with SA having a flag in the tables, while the Lions don´t. Why not use a scaled down version of the emblem as at the top of the page, since it is the representative symbol of the team, just like a flag would normally be? -- Sahmejil ( talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This article has no pictures! Please look out for some useable media and add it. Thanks! -- Sahmejil ( talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is incomplete without a review of this game.
It doesn't fit with the provincial games, since it wasn't played against a provincial team. It wasn't a true Test either, so that is why it was denoted as such whithin the text, and further indented in the contents box. It was also played during the "Test-phase" of the tour, so it makes chronological sense to put it between the reviews of the first and second Tests. To rename the paragraph to something more encompassing like "Important games" to include this game is also just silly.
I propose it is kept as it was here [ [1]].
Alternatively a modified structure of the article can be proposed, but like I said at the start of this comment - the article is poorer and incomplete without a review of the only drawn game of the tour somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahmejil ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very set on having the review. I just don't think to remove it because the reviews of the other tests are shorter/incomplete is a very good reason. The game wasn't really on par with the other provincial games either. A team made of players from all over the country is actually a bit more like a test than it is like a provincial match, although I do agree it was not a test and shouldn't be regarded as such and I dont think the paragraph makes any comparison about the importance of any games. It is just a short, succinct, informal review of an exciting match on tour. Much like the paragraph in the lead that talks about "the highlight of the tour...the second test". If there's consensus to remove it, that's fine, but I think it would be a better strategy to rather improve the other reviews Sahmejil ( talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we need a succession box and a template of Lions tours on this article? Seems like a bit of overkill to me.-- Bcp67 ( talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sports.sg.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3434755.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0704/shaw.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving 2009 British & Irish Lions tour to South Africa was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 July 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why are there links to the national sides in the tables when the heading clearly states Home union. This makes no sense, especially when there are and will be players listed who have not played for the national side they are linked to but are affiliated with a union. -- Bob ( talk) 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted to a single table listing every player selected, with notes explaining their circumstances. I can't see much point to having a 'current squad' list which will change all the time. Wikipedia is not a news service. After the tour this would just reflect those players left standing at the end. IMO, we should have one squad list - separating the squad into 'current players' and 'withdrawals' is unnecessary commentary. -- hippo43 ( talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the IRFU isn't used against the players from Ireland rather than leaving them flagless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatgonzo ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted to a smaller team list format for the 1st Test. To me, the layout with vertical lists with a giant field diagram in the middle was a breach of WP:NPOV, in that it gave undue weight to the teams for this game. It took up almost the entire page view in my browser, and had as much space as four of the other games. The article has to proportionately reflect coverage in reliable sources, and it clearly didn't in this case. Why such a focus on Tests over the non-international games? I don't believe this emphasis is reflected in the sources. Moreover, the article will become very ugly and unwieldy if we end up with three of these lists for the Tests. I'm interested in what others think. -- hippo43 ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Been observing the article develop over the last month or so and a few things spring to mind:
Right, that's it, sorry that I haven't actually got stuck into the article but am suggesting major changes. Unfortunately I don't have time to make major edits all that frequently, and stuff like this should be mooted on the talk page first anyway. Right, discuss... HornetMike ( talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been playing around with the stats list, and here's how it could look (will remove at a later date to stop clutter). Think it looks alright, no idea how to make it sortable though: HornetMike ( talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Key
The pitch thing in the first test Fixture section looks really ugly, and hard to read in my opinion. I'm going to be bold and remove it. I have also noticed that it is not in any of the past tours. Alan16 ( talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to make things awkward and say that I like the graphic, and think the page will look fine when all three tests are done. It's a nice quick reference point to see which players line up along which, no it isn't strictly necessary, but no more necessary than a table displaying all the points scorers. The 2008 Tri Nations uses a similar graphic - although the page has been edited as of the time of this post and looks horrendous, but did look fine before. If we are actually going to remove the graphic, find a way to not leave a big empty white space in between the player lineup, as that would be far worse. Swiss09 ( talk) 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hippo - if seeing who is playing against who is the only reason for keeping it, then it shouldn't be kept. As Hippo said, you can look across the team lists. And since when has rugby been a one-on-one game? Rugby is a team game. Alan16 ( talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As there has been no response here on the issue of policy, I've removed these graphics, in line with WP:NPOV. As well as giving undue weight to the lineups, they are not accurate diagrams of how any rugby team I've ever seen lines up. -- hippo43 ( talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/RSA-LIO 2009-06-20.svg/350px-RSA-LIO 2009-06-20.svg.png Is incorrect SA give their blindside flanker the number 7 and their openside 6 Burger is actually an openside, do the research if you don't believe me. Juan Smith is the blindside for the Boks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.209.35 ( talk • contribs)
Does someone know of a format for a statistics table like lineouts won, missed tackles, penalties conceded etc...? Please add it! -- 41.145.67.219 ( talk) 13:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am being bold and putting in something like I am suggesting. Comments/improvements...? -- Sahmejil ( talk) 20:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks kind of weird with SA having a flag in the tables, while the Lions don´t. Why not use a scaled down version of the emblem as at the top of the page, since it is the representative symbol of the team, just like a flag would normally be? -- Sahmejil ( talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This article has no pictures! Please look out for some useable media and add it. Thanks! -- Sahmejil ( talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is incomplete without a review of this game.
It doesn't fit with the provincial games, since it wasn't played against a provincial team. It wasn't a true Test either, so that is why it was denoted as such whithin the text, and further indented in the contents box. It was also played during the "Test-phase" of the tour, so it makes chronological sense to put it between the reviews of the first and second Tests. To rename the paragraph to something more encompassing like "Important games" to include this game is also just silly.
I propose it is kept as it was here [ [1]].
Alternatively a modified structure of the article can be proposed, but like I said at the start of this comment - the article is poorer and incomplete without a review of the only drawn game of the tour somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahmejil ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very set on having the review. I just don't think to remove it because the reviews of the other tests are shorter/incomplete is a very good reason. The game wasn't really on par with the other provincial games either. A team made of players from all over the country is actually a bit more like a test than it is like a provincial match, although I do agree it was not a test and shouldn't be regarded as such and I dont think the paragraph makes any comparison about the importance of any games. It is just a short, succinct, informal review of an exciting match on tour. Much like the paragraph in the lead that talks about "the highlight of the tour...the second test". If there's consensus to remove it, that's fine, but I think it would be a better strategy to rather improve the other reviews Sahmejil ( talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we need a succession box and a template of Lions tours on this article? Seems like a bit of overkill to me.-- Bcp67 ( talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sports.sg.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3434755.{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0704/shaw.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)