Talk:Queensland Reds

Super 10

Why aren't the two Super 10 wins noted along with the results from the Super 12/14? Bongomanrae 17:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They should be. I'm not sure what Wikipedia has on that yet though. Same goes for the Tah's page, history only extends back to 96, whereas it should go back 100 years. Cvene64 17:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Match v NEC

Hey, I don't think its fair to write that the crowd was 700, since the game was not even a Reds match, but a Queensland XV, during the off-season. The only reason it is listed is to acknowledge Jones' start. Its pretty silly to write the crowd was 700, as it implies that the Reds may only get like 3000 a game or something, if 700 was just "smaller than usual" or something. I just think its a little unfair, and misleading. Hope that clears it uip. Cheers. Cvene64 04:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Cvene. I am truly not trying to start an edit war :-) but I have reverted this back again. To keep friendly, I will try and explain why here.

• Firstly, the text makes it clear that it was the first outing of Eddie Jones at the Queensland Reds (even though the team that played was listed as a Qld XV). It is not trying to mislead and say that this was a full Reds (Super 14 Franchise, if you like) squad.
• Secondly, the mention of the crowd in there is not meant to be disparaging to the Reds. This is not a bias issue. It is giving detail of the game at which Eddie has made his debut. Furthermore, I have linked this to a source (which can give the reader more detail).

A good idea instead of deleting this reference might be instead to incorporate some mention of the Reds (growning and impressive) Super 14 crowds in the article body instead, or maybe a figure in the info box at the top. This would certainly clear up the issue of misleading. Or maybe there could be a link to the Sport in Brisbane page which keeps a list of the averages of codes in Brisbane (and demonstrates clearly Rugby's year-on-year increase in Brisbane.

Again, there is truly no implication that the Reds normally have crowds in the hundreds. Indeed, that would be quite ludicrous to suggest. :-) --dan, dan and dan 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: I have just included a reference in the introduction. Tell me what you think.--dan, dan and dan 02:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

G'day Dan. I know you to be a reasonable fellow, so I dont think its bias or anything like that, but I just feel mentioning a crowd of a non-cap game in the history section is a bit non-notable, and thus could look like a put-down. By misleading I meant that people just skimming through might get the totally wrong idea about the Reds' attendence average, I think a minor crowd detail like that would be better off in an article like List of Queensland Rugby results, or a Queensland XV article or something. I just think with the current scope the figure is out of place. I won't change it, but other people could maybe comment on it as well. Cheers. Cvene64 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

History

This page needs more on all the games prior to professionalism.

1996 season

The article stated that the Reds finished 3rd in 1996. They actually finished 1st, but lost the semi to Natal. Not sure if it was vandalism or just a mistake, but I have changed it now.Narrasawa 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Which logo in the box?

Isnt that just a special logo? Is the koala still the "Reds logo" or whats the deal? which one should be in the box? Gorugby1 14:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that it is only a one-off logo i think the koala should stay as the logo. QRU websites still have the Koala as the symbol. (Bjdorge 12:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:QueenslandRedsOldLogo.gif

Image:QueenslandRedsOldLogo.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Provincial level

Article needs to detail where clubs draw there players from. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

Page moved to Queensland Reds. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Reds (Super rugby team) → Queensland rugby union team – Unlike the New Zealand and South African Super Rugby teams where I can understand the use of the nickname as the team name, the Queensland team existed well before Super Rugby was even thought of. This is reflected in the content of the article which is about the history of the team from the early days of rugby in Australia and not just the Super Rugby era. The team is called "Queensland" in the press (see [1]) and it makes sense to have "Queensland" in the article title. Mattinbgn (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The current team is called the Queensland Reds or the Reds - even in the article you mentioned, the team referred to as such. References to Queensland rugby mainly refers to the rugby union or the region, but the team itself should be called the Reds. I do agree that they might not have been called that in the pre-Super Rugby era (which is covered in the article), but I feel dropping "Reds" from the article name would be incorrect. The page Queensland Reds redirects to this page and would be more appropriate than Queensland rugby union team in my opinion. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In my very humble opinion, "Reds" is a mere marketing gimmick and not an integral part of the name of the team, which is simply "Queensland". This is different than "Crusaders" and "Stormers" where that is the only name of the team and even different than "Melbourne Rebels" and "Western Force" who are recent franchises. It seems strange to treat Queensland as simply another rugby franchise when it has a long and proud rugby history pre Super Rugby. IMO Queensland should be treated the same as the NPC Canterbury representative rugby union team and Western Province (rugby team) rather than the Super Rugby Crusaders. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All the franchise names are to some extent marketing gimmicks, but they are also the common names of the teams and appear on their official websites. Their may be a case for developing the Queensland rugby union team redirect into a non-Super Rugby article by splitting out the Pre-Sanzar history (Early Queensland Years to Early Super Rugby). The article for the team playing super rugby should however stay titled "Reds" or possibly changed to "Queensland Reds". AIRcorn (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we are imposing a naming system that works well for NZ and SA onto the Australian teams where it does not work, at least not for NSW and Queensland. Australia doesn't have the same split between CC/NPC and Super Rugby - Queensland is Queensland is Queensland. The content of this article reflects this truth, the name of the article should too. Paul McLean (rugby player), Tony Shaw and Roger Gould (how does he not have an article!!!) did not play for any team called "Reds"! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why can't there be two articles, a Super Rugby team article and an amateur era Queensland (and NSW) state team article? AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Because unlike NZ and SA (and the Rebels and the Force), the NSW and Qld teams are not new teams formed simply for Super Rugby - they have 120 year histories and it would be silly to split this history in two just to keep a common naming format.

If you don't want to split then WP:Common name means it is probably going to stay at this title and consensus here is favouring that at the moment. I think splitting is not a stupid idea. Have an article titled "Queensland Rugby Union Team" with Super Rugby as a section. Use the main template to link to this article from that section. The History section here is then trimmed down and a main template links to the Queensland Rugby Union Team article from this section. AIRcorn (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The official sites also calls them the Queensland Reds or just the Reds[2][3], plus their logo is just "Reds". I might be willing to support a change to Queensland Reds, similar to the New South Wales Waratahs article title though. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The logo on the jerseys is a simple "Q" consistent with the historic logo in place well before Super Rugby. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant the logo on their website (and used in this article). AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose this suggested move. The team is commonly known as the Queensland Reds. If you believe an article about Queensland's pre-Super Rugby team is necessary, I suggest you create it separately at a new title. – PeeJay 08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "If you believe an article about Queensland's pre-Super Rugby team is necessary, I suggest you create it separately at a new title" I don't belive such an article is necessary at all or even desireable. I believe this article is sufficient and indeed, given that unlike the NZ and SA franchises teams created especially for Super Rugby the history of the Queensland rugby team is continuous over its entire 120 year span, an artificial divide into Super Rugby era and pre-Super Rugby era is silly. However, the name of the team is simply "Queensland" and the marketing nickname is "Reds". I still have not heard one good reason why the article on the team that has played for 100 plus years as "Queensland" and for not even 20 years using a phoney-baloney nickname must be defined by the nickname. The current name is like calling Sussex County Cricket Club, Sharks (cricket)! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Except Sussex play in competitive matches as both Sussex (first-class) and the Sussex Sharks (List A and T20). Do the Queensland Reds play in any games as simply 'Queensland' any more? Also, just because you believe the 'Reds' moniker is "phoney-baloney" doesn't make it so. Can you provide proof that the pre-Super Rugby Queensland team and the current Queensland Reds team are the same organisation? – PeeJay 16:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Can you prove they are different organisations? Way too much assuming that Australian rugby follows the same basic structure as NZ and SA (or even Wales with its franchises like Scarlets) going on here. For historic and geographic reasons, the structure of rugby really is different in Australia, honestly. The Queensland team in Super Rugby is not some new franchise but it is the same team that has played for 120 years and the article name and title should reflect this. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose to the stated name above. A more apt name would be Queensland Reds as that would encompass games pre and post Super Rugby. The pre-Super Rugby Queensland team and the current Queensland Reds team ARE the same organisation, governed by Queensland Rugby. The union tally caps awarded for games pre and post Super Rugby equally.[4] --Bob247 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Naming this article "Queensland Reds" is the equivalent of naming Australia national rugby union team, Australia Wallabies, or the NZ team, New Zealand All Blacks - both clearly WP:COMMON names. However based on the arguments being made here, this is exactly what most here are suggesting should be the case. Hmmm ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your inference is flawed. We are not discussing national teams. National teams have a standard protocol that is used across all sports. --Bob247 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it flawed? There is no functional difference between the two situations. In both cases there are teams that have a proper formal name (i.e. Queensland, New Zealand) but have a nickname that is commonly used to refer to the team. Note this article "On the evidence of Queensland's 18-13 over New Zealand's Crusaders last Saturday night, Barnes went further" While the article refers to "the Reds" on occasion, it is clear from context that this is only a nickname (like Everton and "Toffees") and not the name of the team. Note, this silly name is already affecting the content of the article; The Queensland team definitely was not founded in 1996, despite what the infobox says. The infobox also has consigned to the memory hole Queensland's Super 6 and Super 10 wins! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It seems a history lesson on Australian rugby is needed. Very well. The Australian Rugby Union is made of a bunch of sub-unions - one for each state and territory (i.e. Queensland Rugby Union, New South Wales Rugby Union, Victorian Rugby Union etc.) These are the equivalents of the provincial sub-unions in SA and NZ. However, unlike in NZ and SA, the only two unions with any reasonable playing strength are the QRU and NSWRU. When the Super 6 and the Super 10 were around, Queensland and NSW teams therefore qualified by right, while the NZ and SA teams needed to qualify. This meant some NZ and SA players missed out. When the Super 12 was formed, the NZ and SA Unions created new franchises made up of multiple provinces. This did not happen in Australia because it did not need to - NSW and Qld simply moved their existing teams over to the new competition. Australia did not have to combine their provincial teams as in NZ and SA, they had to create new ones like the ACT Brumbies. Unlike the NZ and SA teams created especially for Super Rugby, this Queensland team is the same team that has existed throughout the life of the QRU. I can understand wanting to have a consistent naming pattern for Super Rugby teams but this name is simply inconsistent with the facts on the ground in Australia and simply wrong. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are unable to read the infobox, we are unable to help you. First, the infobox states that the first match of the team was in 1882, it only states what year the super 12 begins for information. Second, the infobox does not comment on any other season other than the current one (or the preceeding one if we are midseason). Third, to compare the Reds to the Toffees is ridiculous and entirely inaccurate. Your inference in this matter is still flawed.The Toffees do not participate in the English Premiership as the Toffees. The All Blacks do not participate in the World Cup, the IRB sevens or the TriNations as the All Blacks, but as New Zealand. Prove, using official sources, that the word Reds is not part of the official name of the team and that the Reds do not compete in Super Rugby with the word Reds as part of their name. On a side note, the ACT fielded their first representative side back in 1938, so it is far from being new. They only assumed the Brumbies moniker in 1996 as all other sides had one and were previously known as the Kookaburras. This article was previously at Queensland Reds and should be moved back to that name as it encompasses all Queensland representative matches from its inception. --Bob247 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how the name evolved historically, it is definitely not "simply wrong". Have a look at the official webpage. Look at the fixtures and the conference ladders pages. There are several references to "Reds", none to "Queensland". The reality is that teams changed their names to take part as franchises in a professional rugby era. You keep on using the SA and NZ teams as a counter-argument, saying they changed their names only because it's a combination of provincial teams. That is true in most cases, but not all. Look at the Sharks - they consist of only one province (the Natal Sharks). Yet, they used to be called simply Natal in the Super 10. With the advent of the Super 12, they adopted the name the Sharks. Their situation is similar to that of the Reds. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we perhaps agree on a compromise and move the article to Queensland Reds instead? Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Support a move back to Queensland Reds. --Bob247 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy to support Queensland Reds. AIRcorn (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2011 (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 2 external links on Queensland Reds. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060915020427/https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2001_may/waratahs_v_reds_preview_11164,4702.html to http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2001_may/waratahs_v_reds_preview_11164,4702.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20010302053408/http://www.qru.com.au:80/ to http://www.qru.com.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable players

Is "100 or more caps" meant to represent the number of appearances for the team, as opposed to internationals? I don't think it's usually meant in the former way so rewording might be appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.3 (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)