Talk:Six Nations Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Six Nations Championship was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rugby union (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sports (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject France (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Italy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Scotland (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Wales (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Other discussion[edit]

Who captained France to five nations victory in 1959?


The competition is something of an anomaly since the Irish team is comprised of players from both Northern Ireland and the Republic. It is only in rugby union that the north and south of Ireland provide a combined team.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Very many sports are organised on an all-Ireland basis. -Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 23:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Calcutta Cup needs adding.

and the Millennium Trophy.

However overall England has the most Home Nations, Five Nations, and Six Nations tournament victories with 25 (excluding 10 shared victories).

I have removed this from the opening paragraph as it is irrelevant in an article about the Six Nations. If anything we should have a line about how France are the most successful 'Six' Nations team. - --194.106.137.50 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


Wooden Spoon The wooden spoon is only awarded to a team who loses all matches, it is the reverse grand slam and is not awarded automatically to the team who comes last. For example in the 2013 tournament no wooden spoon was awarded as France although coming last won one match and drew another. It is a common misconception that it is 'awarded' to last place, this is not the case. the article result suggests it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.137.219 (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Millennium Trophy[edit]

The article stated that the Millennium Trophy has been contested since 2000. However the Millennium Trophy article, and other sources state that the trophy was commissioned in 1988 ; the website also mentions Ireland winning it in 1993 and 1994. Gives a list of winners back to 1998.Tonywalton Pentacle 1.svg | Talk 14:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The cup celebrates Dublin's millenium rather than THE millenium. Perhaps that is why people get confused.GordyB 12:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Centenary Quaich[edit]

I have never heard of this "trophy", has anyone else ever heard of it? I searched the web and only found one mention of it with regard to rugby, wheras the Millennium Trophy and the Calcutta Cup return thousands of links, has someone just made this up or is there such a thing? 194.125.110.201 15:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have not heard of it before, but this BBC report refers to it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/northern_ireland/2771949.stm) and so it is obviously geniune.GordyB 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
These pages -- (http://www.irishrugby.ie/6855_7603.php) and (http://www.guardian.co.uk/6nations/article/0,,191564,00.html) -- mention it. It seems to have been around since 1989, though I've never heard of it. What's not clear is what centenary it celebrates -- Ireland and Scotland first met in 1877. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it mark having played 100 international games between them? After all there is mention of them having played 121 times, which would fit with 1989.MidlandLinda (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was move supported. The article has been moved. Andrewa 18:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody give me a reason why this should not be called Six Nations Championship? AFAIK there is no other tournament with this name and the Rugby Union bit at the beginning serves no purpose other than to make the title overlong.

If nobody has any objection I will move this page in a couple of days' time.GordyB 11:46, 7 February 2006 (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.

Irish flag[edit]

Issue Resolved The following can now be used: IRFU flag.svg For details of the resolution please see here, and here.Kwib (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


With regards to the Irish flag used beforethe free state, would it not make more sense to use the cross of St. Patrick then the Tricolour and Ulster flags?

Musungu jim 13:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This was voted on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union, the conclusion was that the shamrock was the popular choice. I somehow missed this page when converting the various flags to shamrocks.GordyB 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a little more complex than I first thought, the [[Image:Irish clover.jpg |{{{1|20}}}px]] image that I used on other pages is too big (and doesn't have 'Ireland' coming after it, if I rescale it to 1|15 it is the right height but not wide enough. This will have to wait while I try to find a solution. I think probably the best thing I can do is to edit the image file used by this page rather than try to insert a different image.GordyB 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The "St Patrick's Cross" was not the Irish flag, as frequently claimed, but the emblem of the Fitzgeralds, England's colonial henchmen in Ireland. --MacRusgail 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We are all aware of this but it has no relevance. There was a vote and shamrocks won that is the end of the matter.GordyB 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Would someone put the Shamrock flag back on this page. Since we've made this decision. I have occasionally noticed that the Irish flag disappears or is replaced with an Irish Rugby Flag. Could we please get some consistency going here. It would be a good idea, I think, that in sports pages (not just Rugby) where the whole of Ireland plays as one team (ie, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) all wikipedia pages should use the Shamrock flag. And where it's just the Republic of Ireland the Tri Coloured flag should be used, and just Northern Ireland to use the Ulster flag. This would keep all sporting events' information consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohuiginn (talkcontribs) 00:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we please have the shamrock flag back? The absence of a flag is anomalous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.156.58 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the lack of any sort of emblem looks silly.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Not just silly, it also looks ugly to have one team without a flag, but the consensus view seems to be that the shamrock violates WP:OR, while use of the official flag would breech WP:COPY.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not have the flag of the Republic and the (unofficial) flag of Northern Ireland one after another.GordyB (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Same reason: it's not an 'official' flag, it's a contrived icon, and therefore is deemed to violate WP:OR (see specifically Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Inventing_new_icons). FWIW I'd love to see the shamrock back, and I actually think applying WP:OR to a 25px (or whatever) icon is totally pedantic and strains the intent of the policy. And it's not as if it's unrepresentative: the shamrock is the most significant feature in the proper (copyrighted) flag. But that seems to be the current consensus.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The English flag isn't the official flag of the England team; the Welsh flag isn't the official flag of the Welsh team etc etc.GordyB (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I never said they were. But they are the officially-recognised flags of the countries that those teams represent. The Irish team, however, doesn't represent a nation, it represents an island that doesn't itself have a recognised flag. The flag of Eire isn't appropriate for a team that doesn't represent the republic, and the one truly representative flag, that of the IRFU, is protected by copyright, while anything else (such as the shamrock) seems to fall under the prohibition on contrived icons. But if you want to argue the point, why not take it to the WikiProject page? Though I think you'll find all the arguments have already been made ad nauseam.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The England team represents one nation whilst the Irish team represents two. I don't see much distinction between using an English flag to represent England and using two flags to represent Ireland.GordyB (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
"Do you have a flag?" - Eddie Izzard sketch on British colonialism. In the case of Northern Ireland, the answer is NO - see above and endless arguments elsewhere in Wikipedia. So the 2 flag option won't run! I vote for the IRFU's shamrocks logo.PeterClarke 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC) The provincial flag is an excellent conception, far more appealing than seeing the NI flag and have them need to see the tricolour cleft in twain indeed
Could we just be done with this stupid discussion and use the IRFU flag which appears at every match ? Four Provinces Flag.svg ManfromDelmonte (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we not use this: 40px ? It is fair use (Or so i believe). I made it specifically for the purpose, it is easily idenifiable as to what it represents and it is obviously different to the actual IRFU logo.B0X0 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not the first person to have tried something similar. It is not fair use and secondly it falls foul of the same Wiki policies that did for the shamrock.GordyB (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain which policies these are. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.42.176.178 (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC) They are referred to earlier in this section WP:OR (see specifically Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Inventing_new_icons). GordyB (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ManfromDelmonte,after all it is the IRFU representing Ireland, to homogenise the article maybe the flags/symbols of the other unions/federations should be used.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I seriously don't get this. This version of the four provinces flag is not copyrighted by the IRFU and does appear at Ireland rugby matches. So whats the problem ? Four Provinces Flag.svg ManfromDelmonte (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The Four Provinces is not the correct one, this is and is already used on IRFU wiki page. Ireland Image:IRFU_Flag_of_Ireland.svg


This is my first experience of a Wikipedia dispute and I must admit that I am disappointed and surprised by poverty of the decision making involved. PeeJay tells me I am in a minority on the rugby union WikiProject page on this issue, but when I read the discussion I just see the same 4 guys tossing around opinions to one another (and several others disagreeing with them) and then settling it between themselves; I guess everyone else is the "minority". I think that the treatment of Irish teams in these pages is biased and, possibly, racist. There is a real colonial snap to a couple of guys (who all appear to be in Britain) making decisions about how Irish rugby is presented, with all this legalistic twaddle about copyrights and fair use. The end set of decisions are poor and fly in the face of all common sense. So, before I unleash my minority let me point how how many ways you are wrong. First, it is a mistake to plaster flags all over these pages. That's the original sin. If you want to put an icon beside the country/nations/teams taking part then you should use the symbols of the rugby unions. That is way it is done on the RBS site (not national flags), on TV when the matches are televised and on the players shirts. [Ironically, you use this fact to exclude the tricolour saying that we should use the IRFU flag because it is the flag covering NI and the Republic. Can I applaud your inconsistency here.] If you cannot use these icons because of copyright then no icon should be entered; putting in flags is a poor second. Second, the template you have designed is wrong. The idea of a template is that it covers all the possibilities you want to cover. You have designed a template that doesn't work; by your own admission it does not handle Ireland. By you own reasoning, it should be dumped or modified to a point where it covers all the cases. Third, lets assume that we want to use flags, that you don't want to re-cant the original sin. Then, the logical choice is the 4-provinces one; this is the one created by the authorities to indicate the all-ireland unit. It, therefore, has an authority way beyond you four guys. Several people have pointed out that this is used at the games, several comments on the discussion have made this point but in your wisdom you have batted these comments aside with arbitrary asides (e.g., it is too small, you cant see what it is, do we want to have a flag for the sake of a flag). This is very sloppy reaoning on your part. [and don't re-run the argument that it has to have the copyrighted IRFU logo in it, because you have already rejected that idea yourself by opting not to use the rugby union icons]. Fourth, in all of this you have lost sight of the common sense import of the activity. If you go to these matches you see people with national flags. In Wales the welsh flag, in France their flag and so on. When you go to a Munster match you will see tricolours, same with Leinster and Connaught. In Ulster, you will see a variety of things that reflect the history (probably notably, the now defunct Red-hand flag). These are the flag icons that people use, in common use, to indicate the national alignment of these teams. So, by use, at the very least the teams should have the appropriate flag beside them (if you want to indicate national alignment). In saying this, I recognise that there are problems putting the tricolour next to Ireland and Ulster; but at least we have contained the amount of idiocy in the page. In conclusion, if you want flags (which are not necessarily warranted at all) then I would suggest (i) the 4-provinces flag for Ireland, (ii) the red-hand flag or 4-provinces one for Ulster, and (iii) that the tricolour goes everywhere else. This solution maintains the coherence of the template and is most accurate in reflecting the common view of what all of these things mean, taking divergent sensibilities into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.94.158 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Can we please have the shamrock flag Flag of Ireland rugby.svg back? The absence of a flag is completely ridiculous. There was clear consensus for its use following extensive discussions in the past. Someone has removed all uses of it citing a 'pedantic' (their own word) application of WP:OR preventing us from 'inventing' a new flag in such situations. Surely this is a candidate for WP:IGNORE if ever there was one. The use of the shamrock flag satisfies the north/south controversy, is readily identifiable as an Irish symbol, and is clearly an improvement to wikipedia from the current status quo of blank squares next to every mention of the Irish team. As WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY states, rules are not the purpose of the community, but rather a documentation of existing consensus. We have a consensus that in this individual situation, the use of the shamrock flag is both justified and the least-worst option Little Professor (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively Crossborderirelandflag2.svg :) Little Professor (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue Resolved The following can now be used: IRFU flag.svg For details of the resolution please see here, and here.Kwib (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

France[edit]

Who actually kicked France out in 1930, was it the international rugby football board, or a decesion made by a 5N board of some kind?? 144.131.202.34 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the RFU was largely behind it. The IRFB were up and running at the time but IIRC the RFU held half the seats (the French not being represented), the SRU were even more fanatical about amateurism than their English counterparts. The Irish probably didn't care and the Welsh might have sympathised.GordyB 13:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sports Infobox & Trophy[edit]

I've added the Sports infobox that's started to be used on articles. Also I've moved the trophy picture further down the article - I realise RWC has it at the top, but it's fair use and therefore must be accompanied by critical commentary and not used for decoration purposes. Therefore I've put it next to the trophy section of the article - here fair use can probably be claimed. Alexj2002 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RBS Sponsorship[edit]

Anyone know how much the RBS actually pay in Sponsorship? JulianHensey 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Records[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result was to split the records section into List of Six Nations Championship records. Shudde talk 05:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this should be split into Six Nations Championship records and statistics? It was just listed as a GA nom, and a big unreferenced list at the end of the article is no good. It should be a summary like the Crusaders article, which is a current GA. Cvene64 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go along with that, the list of stats is unappealing and will doubtless be brought up in the GA nom. The Rambling Man 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd support that. I think the article may fail GA though, not referenced well enough. - Shudda talk 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd Support splitting it and yes its not that well referenced and the article needs to be wikified a lot..Cometstyles

I agree with the split: The current section clutters up the article and there are many more records that have'nt been mentioned. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

good article nomination[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

the page needs more citations before it can be classed as a good article Themcman1 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs a better historical section too. The French article does a good job. 87.18.55.141 (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

U-21 tournament[edit]

Anyone have any info on the under 21s 6N? So we can add it in like the Womens is. Goldman07 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shared titles[edit]

I counted 11 shared titles for Wales (instead of 10) and 8 shared titles for France (not 7). Can I edit this in 1 Week time? April 4

  -  I have changed the Welsh figure in the blurb but do not know how to edit the table - anyone else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.53.18 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 

Wins since 1954[edit]

I have France on 24 (inc 2006 and 2007). I'm also not sure that England can be placed before Wales. Although they do have 2 more grand slams, they've won the tournament 3 less times. Surely in a page about the Six nations Tournament, that should place Wales in second? Can I change in 1 week? September 17 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.53.18 (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial European Champions[edit]

I've removed the following comment from the opening paragraph:

The winner of the RBS 6 Nations is often seen as being the unofficial European Champions.

It had been tagged with a request for a citation already. I've personally never heard such a remark and it smacks of orignal research to me. Considering that most european countries do have a national side and yet only 6 teams compete I think it's a bit of a stretch to make this comment. AulaTPN 12:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Only the six nations have professional teams; in other countries rugby union is only an amateur sport. ENC is also known as "Six Nations B", why would that be the case if it was not universally considered a lower league.GordyB 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody (not me!) has removed the comment, with the note "Removing inaccurate statement - no one uses that terminology in rugby". I agree. I've been following the 5N and 6N since the mid-1960s and can't recall ever hearing the tournament champions described as "European Champions" (official or unofficial). I'm not saying that the 6N champions are not the best team in Europe; of course they are, considering that the rest are amateurs, but nobody is daft enough to want such a hollow title. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you bought the Times today then there is an example on page 40 of the separate 6 Nations suppliment.
There have been six World Cups and, in three of the five seasons that followed, England emerged as European champions - 1992, 1996 and 2000.
I am reverting accordingly.GordyB (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure they are talking about the 6 nations?
England has won the 6 nations in 1992, 1995, 1996, 2000, (as well as a few more years before and after). Why did the article leave out 1995? If anything 1995 was a grand slam year, unlike 1996.
The wording does not sound right either. "in three of the five seasons that followed...", that does not sound right as the 6 nations happen every year so between 1992 and 2000 there was 8 'seasons', (I don't think that they are called seasons either).
Would you be able to quote/ref a bit more of the article, I am curious as to what they were talking about.
I have also never heard of the 6 nations been refered to as the 'unofficial European Champions'. Google seems to agree as well. FFMG (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Try harder, I found six links in a matter of minutes.GordyB (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There were five seasons that immediately followed World Cups (as there have been 5 World Cups). As for the quote, I will see if it is available online later but I am watching a game at the moment.GordyB (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. Still, I find it a bit strange for the Times to say that, (for a moment I though they might be talking of European Club Rugby, but it only started in 1995).
Like I said, never heard of the 5N or 6N winner been called the European champion. FFMG (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Provide a proper citation. Until you do so I'm removing it. One newspaper article does not establish "often seen as..."Jimmy Pitt (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
How many would you like? Previously it was claimed that nobody ever said this. Exactly how many quotes would establish that it was relatively common?GordyB (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
More than one. You insist it's often used. Several of us say it's not and though we're not saying (well I'm not) that it's never used, we are saying that we've never come across it. If it's that rare, it shouldn't be in an encyclopaedic article, certainly not in the lead section. One instance doesn't demonstrate "often", any more than one swallow makes a summer. If you want "often", rather than "sometimes", or "occasionally", or "infrequently", it's up to you establish verifiability, because it's the inaccurate "often" that we're disputing. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to my previous comment, if you were to put the comment somewhere in the body of the article I'd have less of a problem with it, but it has no place in the lead section when it's (a) contentious, and (b) not mentioned in the article itself. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have six in total.GordyB (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
On the basis of those (one's a dead link, and one contains inaccuracies that render it suspect but I'll grant you four), I accept that it's sometimes referred to ... But life's too short to argue. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Suits me.GordyB (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need all 3 references in the intro? We discussed it here and a consensus was reached, would one ref not be enough?
If a reader wants to, they can come to the talk page and see the other references.
Maybe it is just me, but I think it does not look very nice to have so many refs in the into like that. FFMG (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree -- GordyB was trying to justify his point, but once he'd succeeded, one citation in the article should suffice: as you say, the rest are here. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage[edit]

Same question as the one I asked in Talk:2008 Six Nations Championship.
Is there any reason why we need to know who will be broadcasting the tournament?
I have no doubt that it is been shown by many fine stations all over the world, does it really improve the article to list them here? FFMG (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone as an input on the mater or shall I just remove it?
I think the list is probably, (I have no ref to check any of the info), out of date and does not offer the reader any useful information. FFMG (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see it go. It doesn't really seem appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. And it's irrelevant the moment the tournament ends. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 results[edit]

As this article relates to the tournament as a whole and there's an article specifically for 2008, I've linked to that and removed the table and results from here: it doesn't seem sensible to have two tables and two sets of results, in different formats, being updated independently. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Women's Competition[edit]

Should there not be some mention of the results of the women's competion, at least the winners for each year? 216.36.132.66 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a separate article for it for a reason. It is a different competition.GordyB (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

England & Wales versus Scotland & Ireland[edit]

There have been several matches where a combined England and Wales team played a combined Scotland and Ireland team. One example is the one played at Twickenham, 17 Oct 1959 to celebrate the jubilee of the first match at Twickenham. The score was E & W 26 - 17 S & I. Could someone compile a list of these special matches and post it in this article (or another suitable page)? PeterClarke 10:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Under the section "format"[edit]

I deleted the sentences describing the results of the competition since 2005 in this section, as I found them irrelevant to the section "format". Nonetheless, I put all the sentences to the pages of the competitions per year, i.e. 2005 Six Nations Championship to 2009 Six Nations Championship, where they are much more relevant. Salt (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthems[edit]

I have altered the description of "God Save the Queen" from "unofficial national anthem to "by custom and usage, national anthem", which accords with the wording here.- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, I just wanted to point out that the status of "God Save the Queen" is the same as the anthems used by Scotland and Wales, just to keep to NPOV.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Six nations wins[edit]

This table has Scotland with 1 win and Wales 1 when it should be 2 for Wales and 0 for Scotland. Can't find any way to edit it.

Five Nations XV[edit]

Was Declan Kidney really coaching this XV in 1986? At that time both Jacques Fouroux and Clive Rowlands had coached their International sides. From what I can find, Declan Kidney was still working as a teacher at the time, and did not become a prominent/well known rugby coach until the late 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.110.177 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

-- just looked through the history, earlier revisions had Mick Doyle as a coach, which seems more likely as he was Irish coach at the time. At some point his name was removed, and it looks like someone has added the current Irish coach by mistake. Be good if someone who had access to the original source could clarify exactly who was coaching the team that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.110.177 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

History[edit]

There doesn't seem to currently be a section detailing which nations were added (or subtracted) and when. —Wiki Wikardo 20:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd add to this, there definitely needs to be a History section. Who created the tournament, why, when, what was behind subsequent expansions etc etc.2.218.69.196 (talk)

Stade de France, Paris or St Denis[edit]

I see that User:Bob247 has gone around and changed the location of the Stade de France, from Paris to St Denis,([1],[2],[3],[4]). Where was this discussed? I am leaning toward thinking that the stadium is in Paris, and that St Denis is just a suburb/commune of paris, (if you have a look at the map of the area), for the same reason that Twickenham is in London and not Twickenham, (and there are maybe other stadiums).
So what is consensus about the location of the Stade de France, the article itself is not entirely clear, (and Twickenham)? FFMG (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Draw[edit]

How does the draw for the tournament work? Greenman (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Home Nations Championship in the Lead[edit]

The current lead, which states The Home Nations Championship, played between the four British Isles teams of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, was the first international rugby union tournament., contains redundancies. To say this without explanation would confuse the reader. And explaining that neither the Isle of Man nor any of the Channel Islands played in the Home Nations Championship would be too much information for this article's intro. Consequently, The Home Nations Championship, played between teams from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, was the first international rugby union tournament. is all it needs to say. Daicaregos (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that was the edit I'd made first before the socks jumped in. It's my preferred version, although the current version is better than just having "British Isles" on its own. Gareth, what are your thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Cannot disagree with Dai, whose editing experience here on Wikipedia is exemplary. My aim was – and still is – to attempt to satisfy all involved. If anyone should make the revision, it must be Dai. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see what the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have got to do with anything. As it stands it's clear. I don't think it needs amending. Scandal Bird (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Two reasons. Firstly, saying England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the four British Isles teams is redundant, and reason enough on its own for the copy edit; secondly, saying the four British Isles teams sounds wrong. Hundreds (probably thousands) of rugby teams play in the British Isles or, if it is supposed to mean the four British Isles national teams, readers would expect three national teams from Great Britain, two from Ireland, one from the Isle of Man, and at least one from the Channel Islands, not the four British Isles teams. Daicaregos (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with "the four British Isles national teams (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales)" then. That covers everything, and everyone is happy, well, almost everyone. Scandal Bird (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
That still raises the question of why the British Isles has only four national teams. There is no need to say any more than The Home Nations Championship, played between teams from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, was the first international rugby union tournament. Adding anything about the British Isles is superfluous and confusing. Daicaregos (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That all makes complete sense, Dai. Thanks. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 21:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Quite so. Absolutely no need to refer to the British Isles at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree too. Victor Yus (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my objections to the current proposal, but I place on record my opinion that the original change was made for less than wholesome reasons, judging by the past and present edits of the user concerned. Scandal Bird (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I've made the agreed change. Daicaregos (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

1932–39[edit]

`Why is the reas0n f0r the absence 0f France during this peri0d missing? 92.41.216.92 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is fairly light on the history of the championship in general, although according to something I read recently it wasn't constituted as an official championship until as recently as 1993. Basically during those years E, S, I and W refused to play F in protest against supposed professionalism in French rugby. Might do some work on adding some history to the article. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is Grand Slam not equal to Triple crown for the home nations era?[edit]

As far as I understood, a Grand Slam is winning against all others, and the triple crown for winning against all other home nations. Hence, in the home nation era, both titles should be the same, I thought. But in the statistics, they are not. Many Triple crowns, but only 2 Grand slams. What did I get wrong? Eltirion (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you have made a very sound point  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The article explains: "The Grand Slam honour is applied retroactively to teams which won all of their matches in Five Nations tournaments before the term came into use. It is also applied to the 1908 and 1909 seasons, when matches with France took place during, but outside of, the then Home Nations Championships. However the Grand Slam honour is not applied to seasons in which only the four home nations were involved (1883–1907 and 1932–1939) – in that case a team that won all its matches is said to have achieved the Triple Crown. This honour is still competed for between the four home nations within the Six Nations Championship." Greenman (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Historical custom has been to only honour the 3-win home nations champs with a Triple Crown, and we have to stick by that here. The phrase Grand Slam was first used in the late 1950s, although it is retrospectively applied to all the 4-win champions before that (and the 1908 and 1909 seasons when France were not part of the full championship). Triple Crown came into use much earlier and has always been solely applied to the E,I,S,W games only. I don't believe you will find any reliable sources to include the home nations 3-win champs amongst the Grand Slam winners so this article has to reflect that. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

Is there a reason that Six Nations does not redirect here but to a disambiguation page? I personally have never heard of the ice hockey tournament, and, considering it only ran for two years, it seems pretty obscure compared to the rugby competition. The other disambiguation links are to the Under-20 Six Nations Championship, the Women's Six Nations Championship etc, and if people were looking for them they would almost certainly type "Women's 6 Nations" or something. I feel that this article should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Six Nations, and we could have a "Six Nations redirects here. For the ice hockey competition see..." message at the top of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.220 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but apart from rugby and other sport, what about the Iroquois Confederacy, a group of First Nations/Native American people that first consisted of five nations, and then six nations? And what about the Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, the largest First Nation in Canada? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1954 Championship shared three ways[edit]

The 1954 title was shared three ways between England, France and Wales, who each won three games. England won the Triple Crown but failed to complete the Grand Slam by losing to France in the last game. I've reverted the 1940-1999 details to show the three shared winners. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Six Nations Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

Removed non sourced opinion from this section as it has been up for too long without any clarification on why scheduling difficulties would hamper an extra nation joining. If any contributor can add information that the RBS Six Nations has themselves said in an official capacity to this motion then please clarify, source and submit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TragicVision1 (talkcontribs) 16:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Scotland's Home Nations win/draw discrepancy[edit]

I believe there's a mistake somehow in the way Scotland's Home Nations tally appears in the table. The summary table suggests they won nine times and drew twice, whereas I believe they won ten times and drew thrice. ie wins in 1887, 1889, 1891, 1895, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1907, 1933 and 1938; draws in 1886, 1888 and 1890. I've checked, double checked and checked again.

I've not created or edited a Wiki table before and would need to spend a while to find the bug. Perhaps a moderator could check I'm right and if so, amend the table.

Thanks! --Virtualken (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)