Talk:List of players on the All Blacks rugby team

This redirect 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

New Zealand

This redirect 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

Untitled

This needs to be expanded.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 00:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there's ALOT of work to be done here and it'll be really hard to keep up to date once completed. But it's not impossible; the Cricket Portal have a list of ALL test players ever! It's automatically generated from some other site, i think. We should make some enquiries with them for how to maintain a list like this. GringoInChile 05:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added players numbered 201 - 400 to the list. I have written a script that uses the info on stats.allblacks.com to create a wikified list. However it's a manual system, but still quicker then doing it myself. Unfortunately, the contents page on the website doesn't display points scored, which is why that isn't included in those entries at the moment. I looked at the Cricket Portal, the list isn't updated automatically. What it does is combine the various test countries lists into one large list automatically, however those individuals countries lists are done manually. Anyway, I'm going to add all the All Blacks eventually, however the disambiguation is going to take a while. It shouldn't be too hard to keep up to date, because only 25 of the 1060 All Blacks are playing for them regularly. - Shudda ^talk 04:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Shudda. I can help you with the disambiguations, so I'll do the group 201-300. GringoInChile 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done 551 to the end of the list. Maybe wasn't the wisest move to disambig sections that aren't fully filled. Oops. --Stormie 06:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every bit helps. I should prob add the rest of the players to the list though. - Shudda ^talk 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Why was this article renamed. The current wording is long winded and redundant. - Shudda ^talk 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well who ever renamed it didnt give any explanation as to why and I think we should revert it back ..----Cometstyles 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfium was nice enough to move it back for us. Shudda ^talk 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Someone suggested this page be deleted. It was an anon that added the template but nothing was added to this page. I have removed it, because this is a list of notable people. - Shudde ^talk 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to make the argumention for deletion of this list, utilizing several points.

1.) This is a list. Make no mistake, this is a merely a compliation of facts. There is next to no interpretation or analysis. Compare this to, say, using rugby, the list of Canadian test match scores. While the Canadian list also recounts facts, it also has a natural narrative, which allows you to follow the history of Canadian test rugby and compliments the article about the subject.

2.) As a simple list, its getting way to big. This is always a bad sign.

3.) Not everybody on the list is a notable person. Some NZ ruggers played only one game or so, or have been long forgetten, even by rugby history. Of course, the slippery slope here is that every All Black, by virtue of being an All Black, is notable. Oh, really? What about every Olympian? What about every athlete that played a game in European football, the NHL, NFL, CFL, NBA, MLB, or any of countless professional and amateur sport leagues and orginizations that compile detailed and (to them) meaningful statistics.

I'd suggest that a category be created for All Black players that organizes those Wiki entries for All Blacks that are notable enough that they merit an unique entry. (See team player lists for CFL teams, for example.)

4.) Finally, and touching on the last point, the history of All Black rugby and statistics is amply and excellently covered in print and ONLINE in many places. This Wiki list is simple, and less effective and poorly presented, repetition, and is redundant.

I believe these points are mostly irrefutable. 216.254.160.18 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, none of those reasons are good enough for deletion. Firstly, a list is not a narrative. It should have an acceptable lead but apart from that doesn't require much prose (admittedly the lead of this article should be expanded, but that is never reason enough for deletion). If it's too big then it can be split up as per WP:SIZE, but size is never going to be a good reason for deletion. Everyone on the list is notable; if they have played rugby for New Zealand, even if it's not a Test they are notable, simple as that, none would fail wikipedia's notability criteria ("Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level"). Just because this information is available elsewhere is no reason for it's deletion. Please explain why it's repetitive and redundant? Also how is it set out poorly? I think all of your arguments are very poor, and am surprised you have bothered spending the time trying to delete this page. If you have not done so already you should have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy because your arguments don't seem to be backed up by any policy. - Shudde ^talk 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add another deletion tag because deletion is clearly contested. If you want take it to WP:AFD although I highly doubt a consensus to delete will be found, so it's probably a waste of time. - Shudde ^talk 22:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]