Talk:The Invincibles

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Rugby league

The Invincibles is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles

Requested move

Universally referred to as The Invincibles, much like The Ashes and The Beatles -- —Moondyne 09:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support -- —Moondyne 09:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons given above. Stephen Turner 10:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Peripatetic 07:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Never heard it called as Invincibles. -- Da Gizza ^{Chat (c)} 10:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

A Redirect should still be kept for Invincibles Da Gizza ^{Chat (c)} 11:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance. The Invincibles now redirect to Invincibles. Why aren't we doing a cut and paste from the latter to the former and instead go for this official process ? Tintin 11:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're not bold? Stephen Turner 11:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No reason other than we'd lose edit history. I always understood that doing this was the preferred process if the target already existed (per WP:RM). I'm happy to be corrected. -- —Moondyne 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that if the target article is only a redirect to the current article and has no other history, you can just go ahead and Move the article. Stephen Turner 13:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've now done. Stephen Turner 13:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dab?

At the risk of creating a trans-Tasman war, can I point out that in rugby-union playing countries, The Invincibles refers to the the 1925 All Black rugby team. There's also a movie called "The Invincibles" and an R&B group from L.A. with that name. This page should probably be moved to The Invincibles (cricket), with a disambiguation page in its place.

AFAIK the 1948 cricket team is far more well known than the 1925 rugby union team - and most RU countries are also cricket countries. I'd prefer it left as it is - but wouldn't want to start another trans-Tasman war about it either. Note also that there is a disambiguation page Invincible which mentions both of these teams, and the movie. -- —Moondyne 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a one-line dab-link at the top of this article... I think that'll be a reasonable compromise. I'll also move the half a dozen or so All Black articles in this article's "What links here" list that clearly shouldn't be pointing to an Aussie cricket team! Grutness...wha? 12:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 1982 Kangaroos to GB and France are also referred to as The Invincibles. Original, huh? --Paul 15:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab again

The Invincibles has just acquired a third meaning (and there are a couple more meanings as stated above, which are still not at Invincible), so I want to revisit this subject. I think it's time to make a disambiguation page in one of two ways: (i) keeping the cricket article at The Invincibles, and putting For other uses see The Invincibles (disambiguation) at the top of the page; or (ii) Making The Invincibles itself into a disambiguation page, and moving the cricket article to The Invincibles (cricket).

As I understand the Manual of Style, the correct choice depends on whether cricket is the dominant meaning or whether the meanings are more equal, with a bias towards the latter. As a cricket fan, the cricket team is the primary meaning to me; but objectively, I'm inclined to think they are equal enough that we should go for option (ii). I'm judging by the length of the articles (1, 2, 3, roughly equal) and the number of inbound links (cricket, lots but only 13 from real articles, even though it's the oldest; rugby, 5; Irish nationalists, 8, even though it's the newest).

Anyone else want to comment? I'm very keen that the cricket community should always be seen to do the right thing. Where the cricket meaning really is the primary one, we should have it (cricket (insect)). Where two are roughly equal, it should be a dab page (Bill O'Reilly). Where another meaning is primary, we should let the other guys have it (umm... Tareq Aziz, maybe, although we don't spell that the same). But which is the case here? Can anyone else try and take an objective view?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google for 'Irish National Invincibles "Phoenix Park"' you get 408 hits, whereas 'Invincibles "Phoenix Park"' gets 735. This confirmed my gut instinct that the most common usage in the Irish nationalists context is actually The Invincibles. Certainly during my schooling in Ireland we never heard the Irish National Invincibles usage. So really we have to consider an article move or at a minimum a redirect from/to The Invincibles (Irish history).

I think we need a The Invincibles dab page.

PS Did anyone evr consider why these cricket/rugby teams were labelled as The Invincibles? Do you think that perhaps there might have been an Irish/British influence in the choice of words?

Frelke 13:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'm happy to admit I was wrong in opposing a rename when this was proposed previously. I support Stephen's option 2: A The Invincibles dab page and rename this to The Invincibles (cricket). -- —Moondyne 01:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the other "The Invincibles"s (oh, the shame!) but I admit to being an English cricket fan, so perhaps I am a bit biased :) I suggest we start by leaving the cricket article at "The Invincibles", and add {{otheruses}} and create a dab page, but accept that the best result in the end may be this may be that "The Invincibles" is the dab page. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some more! Melbourne Football Club were originally known as The Invincibles according to this. And the 1914 team of Port Adelaide Football Club were also known as The Invincibles according to this and this (although neither of their Wikipedia articles mentions it). Here's something about the R&B group, and here's the movie.

There's something curious about these sport nicknames. Surely they can only have acquired the name after the season had ended. So it's a sort of retrospective nickname. Isn't that a bit odd?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want us to have to keep moving things around, so I've gone with my original plan, and moved the cricket team to The Invincibles (cricket). I've added all the meanings we've found so far to the dab page, except that Melbourne Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club are waiting for feedback on their talk pages. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the moves, but is it really necessary at the top of The Invincibles (cricket) to say This article is about the 1948 Australian cricket team. For the 1924-5 New Zealand rugby union team, see The Invincibles (rugby union). For the Irish extremist nationalist group see Irish National Invincibles. The article is now explicitly about a cricket team and perhaps the bit at the top should just say: For other uses of "The Invincibles" see The Invincibles disambiguation page. -- —Moondyne 12:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need any notice at all as the article title includes "cricket", so no-one can have reached there looking for any of the other Invincibles. My fault. I meant to remove it and forgot. Thanks for pointing it out. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]