Talk:Six Nations Championship/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Millennium Trophy

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  | 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)


Requested move

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.

France

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

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

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

U-21 tournament

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)

Records

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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wins since 1954

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)

Shared titles

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)

Media coverage

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)

Unofficial European Champions

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)

2008 results

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

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)

Centenary Quaich

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)

England & Wales versus Scotland & Ireland

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"

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

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)

Irish flag

Issue Resolved The following can now be used: 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 (talk • contribs) 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 ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we not use this: File:IrishRugbyLogo.svg ? 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 ? 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 can't 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 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  :) Little Professor (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Five Nations XV

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

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

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)

good article nomination

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:

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)

Draw

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

Home Nations Championship in the Lead

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

`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)

Other discussion

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)

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

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)

1954 Championship shared three ways

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

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Expansion

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 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Titles and awards

Why in the wooden spoon section are all awards listed ? None of the other sections list all the years, just the last year won. Also, the years won is already recorded elsewhere in the article. Propose making the wooden spoon section consistent with the other 4 in the titles and awards section. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the table

So far I propose that the current tables should be changed to this as it makes it tideier and easy rather than one team on each square, even if England have won the Slam.Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

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)
I think the above unnamed user is probably broadly correct as regards WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but his or her suggested solution is slightly wrong. Six Nations should become a redirect to here, while its contents should be transferred to Six Nations (disambiguation) (which is currently a redirect to Six Nations). Our article should then say something like 'Six Nations redirects to this article, which is about the annual men's rugby union competition. For other uses, see Six Nations (disambiguation).' In theory it may or may not be necessary or advisable to first go through the tedious exercise of getting some of the statistics mentioned at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. On the other hand somebody could just make the changes per WP:BOLD, citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and hope that gets accepted. I may even eventually try to do so myself (but probably not just yet, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, because right now I don't want to risk getting into some tedious and time-consuming dispute about things like Wikipedia traffic stats and/or respect for First Nations, plus there may or may not also be something that would need doing regarding this entry in Wikidata, which is beyond my level of understanding, and probably also something that I don't want to spend time trying to learn to understand). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Overall table need to be updated?

I removed a reference of Irelands Grand Slam from the Overall Results section, as I think it should be on the table, not as a one line text. But lookiong on older versions, it seems it is not included on the table. I could add it, but I have no source, so I might just make it worse. Can someone more knowledgeable check / update the table, please? And add a source so others may check and update later on? Thank you - Nabla (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nabla, you were right to remove that text. As for the tables, they were already updated, as they correctly show Ireland has won 3 Grand Slams (1948, 2009 and 2018, as shown in the detailed tables).Tlhslobus (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Tlhslobus. A source - more sources - would also help much in avoiding future confusions. - Nabla (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wooden spoon section

The list of teams and years "won" states "Bold indicates that the team did not win any matches". Not true in every case - England won matches in 1974 and 1975, both of which are shown in bold. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed this myself - it was a formatting error on one of the early years listed. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Doddie Weir Cup

According to this article, the Doddie Weir Cup will not be contested in Six Nations matches. It will be played annually every November, alternating between Cardiff and Edinburgh. – PeeJay 08:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Tournament logos

I've noticed that the individual tournament articles of recent years lack their official logo/poster in their infobox, unlike in the Rugby World Cup articles. Someone updated the main page logo in December 2018, and the old one was subsequently deleted for being non-used media.

This is a serious pet peeve of mine. Especially with how often I see historical logos in articles being deleted because someone doesn't appreciate the importance of having them archived or simply didn't bother to check whether they were being used or not. Would appreciate it if you one or more of you familiar with the topic would begin gathering and uploading the respective images. DA1 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

We can’t put logos on the individual pages unless there is a specific logo for that season. The Six Nations logo is copyrighted, so we can only use it on a limited number of pages in order to satisfy the requirements of Fair Use. – PeeJay 08:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Scotland's Home Nations win/draw discrepancy

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)

Further info on this (related to the problems with 1888 and 1889) can be found below in the section 'Discrepancies with French Wikipedia'. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Promotion / Relegation

Possibly a few lines at the end should highlight that promotion and relegation have been put forward as ways of improving the Six nations by numerous people, specifically by World Rugby, Clive Woodward, and the current England manager Eddie Jones and others. There is more than enough evidence to support this. it might also add that Italy objects to this and their reasons for doing so. If no-one has a problem, I can do it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.202.203 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Such a section would probably improve the article, if done right, so if you haven't already tried and failed, please feel free to try (per WP:BOLD), with 'per Talk' somewhere in your edit description), preferably including supporting citations as unsupported claims can be challenged and/or removed. If you have already tried and had your work removed, you could indicate this here with the text you tried to add, and/or diffs of your attempt (which can be got from the article's edit history); this might allow some other editors help you to get it added (after improvements if needed). Tlhslobus (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancies with French Wikipedia

We currently have (at least) the following two conflicts with the French version of this article:

  • 1) Their text and championship totals treat the 1888 and 1889 Tournaments as incomplete (and thus with no winners), stating that England was not formally excluded but was boycotted, whereas we say (in the articles for the two years, with our details here reflecting this) that they were excluded for refusing to join the IRB. Neither our version nor the French version offer any WP:RS citations in support of these two conflicting interpretations. Incidentally, this difference also explains the discrepancies referred to above in Talk:Six_Nations_Championship#Scotland's_Home_Nations_win/draw_discrepancy on 12 March 2016 (although somewhat strangely I can't find the complained-of discrepancies in the Edit History at the time).
  • 2) The French article uses a different Irish flag for the year 1912 and earlier (as does its yearly article for 1894, tho not any of the others that I've checked), a diagonal red cross on a white background, which it seems to call St Patrick's saltire. There is no WP:RS supporting this, but the very fact that they use it strongly suggests that somebody over there knows something we don't, and is thus quite likely to be right.

I don't expect to have time to investigate this further and try to fix it (here and/or in French Wikipedia) anytime soon (if ever), but perhaps some other editor could have a go in the meantime. I speak French reasonably well, so I may also eventually get around to adding a similar note in French Wikipedia, but probably not any time soon. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tlhslobus,
For the question 1), 1888 and 1889 Tournaments as incomplete too for Welsh federation. Welsh federation doesn't recognize the first place in 1888 like shared title (https://www.wru.wales/fixtures-and-teams/established-1881/championships-titles/). First victory in 1893 and first shared title in 1906 for WRU ("The first shared title was with Ireland in 1906"). Mostly books on rugby don't give winner(s) for this two editions: "pas de classement" for Le Rugby pour les Nuls ("no ranking" for Rugby for Dummies), book of 2011 writed by François Duboisset (French player then journalist and historian of the rugby game), "not completed" for the different ESPN Sports Almanacs (books of 2001, 2002, etc. every year), Un siècle de rugby (One Century of Rugby), book of 1997 by examples older than French choices on Wikipedia.
GabrieL (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful information and useful links, GabrieL. This should help some editor improve our article, possibly even me if I can eventually find the time. (Meanwhile I note that some other editor already seems to have fixed the Irish flag for 1912 and earlier, bringing it into line with French Wikipedia - see my question 2 above). Thanks again for your help and kind regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Tlhslobus, "Not completed" too for BBC Sport (https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/17274833) or Reuters (https://uk.reuters.com/article/rugby-union-nations-winners/rugby-six-nations-winners-idUKL4N0V85DD20150130) (but same presentation: copy-paste?). For the English Wikipedia page, the information had changed in December 2012 without edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six_Nations_Championship&diff=528662292&oldid=528658838): "Not completed" before. In fact, in the precedent official website of the tournament, 1888 and 1889 were "not completed". In the precedent official website (rbs6nations.com), all results are detailed (but bugs on matches with draw score with tie to the number of tries) and not only prize list like now (https://web.archive.org/web/20070202014014/http://www.rbs6nations.com/stats1880s.htm : by example tables in 2007 with 1888 and 1889 not completed on precedent official website). The prize list with "1888 Ireland, Wales and Scotland" and "1889 Scotland" is only since 2014 in the official website. The current official website maybe copied English Wikipedia. GabrieL (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, GabrieL- it's wonderful the way our errors end up in Reliable Sources which can then be used to justify our errors. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
However it gets a bit more complicated. For instance, your 2007 link has the 1886 championship as 'not completed' too, even tho it's clear that Scotland and England played all their games and shared the championship, and that Ireland and Wales didn't play each other, perhaps because they clearly couldn't catch Scotland and England. It's possible that both Wikipedia and the official site are reflecting understandable complaints, especially by Scotland, that they shouldn't be penalised because England refused to play, so how we should handle this may be quite complicated: where reliable sources differ (as they now do), we are supposed to give both points of view in proportion of the weight in the sources, and that should involve quite a bit of work and quite a few footnotes, etc). (Incidentally my own Ireland could claim a Championship and Triple Crown and Grand Slam by walkover in 1972 because Wales and Scotland refused to play in Dublin after protesters burned down the British Embassy following Bloody Sunday - but unfortunately I assume there are currently no reliable sources that would support that ). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, very complicated even if I think that the current version of Wikipedia in French corresponds more to the sources and the historical reality ;-)
Two thoughts on your last message:
  • 1886 championship is different than 1888 and 1889 tournaments because the no played match could not have changed the winners in 1886. In 1888 and 1889, the no played matches could have changed all the ranking;
  • because England refused to play No, England didn't refuse to play. English federation refused to join the International Football Rugby Board but English team wanted to meet the other teams, these are the players of the three other teams who refused to meet England as long as English federation it didn't join the Board.
GabrieL (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I can add in something which pre-dates the internet. From the early 1970s to around 2000 the main British reference book was the Rothmans Rugby Union Yearbook, which I have a complete set of. I've picked the 1982-83 edition out at random and in their list of champions they have a line alongside the 1885, 1888 and 1889 tournaments and a note that the tournament wasn't completed in those years. The 1886 title is shown as shared between England and Scotland. Another book is the history of the England team, by Barry Bowker, published in 1978, which states that England refused to play Scotland in 1885 because of a dispute from the 1884 match. England refused to join the new IRFB in 1886 because they only had equal voting rights with the other nations, and this led to Scotland, Ireland and Wales all refusing to play England in 1888 and 1889. Hope this helps a bit! --Bcp67 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the Rothmans Rugby Union Yearbook ;-) Page in Wikipedia in French conforms to this version. GabrieL (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Tlhslobus and Bcp67, In the new French book (August 2019), Histoires insolites du rugby by Julien Bonnefoy (ISBN 9782824615265), after 2019 Six Nations Championship, the writer counts 38 titles for Wales (27 outright and 11 shared titles), he considers 1888 and 1889 Home Nations Championships like not completed (and no share title for Wales in 1888). GabrieL (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wooden Spoons?

Why are the total wooden spoons here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship#Overall) completely different to the total wooden spoons here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship#Wooden_Spoon). So do Ireland have 36 wooden spoons or 29? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.147.98 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

17 Whitewashes for Ireland (1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1891, 1895, 1909, 1920, 1934, 1938, 1960, 1977, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1992 and 1998) and 26 times alone in last place in the completed tournaments (1884, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1895, 1900, 1904, 1909, 1920, 1934, 1938, 1955, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1977, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1996, 1997 and 1998). Not alone in the last place in the ranking (last with Wales twice) whereas whitewash in 1883, 1886 because tournament not completed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship#Overall determines the last of each edition according to the current criteria (even when there are several teams ranked last tie): mistake according to me. Wooden spoon is traditionally for team last alone. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship#Wooden_Spoon, there were mistakes on 1908, 1921 and 1923. GabrieL (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This Wooden Spoon stuff is full of flaws. To pick one example - 1988, mentioned above as Ireland "alone in last place". Ireland and Scotland were jointly fourth in 1988 with 2 points each, so clearly Ireland weren't alone in last place that year. We shouldn't be applying modern tie-breaking criteria to historical tournaments where they didn't apply - that's original research. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Six nations wins

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.98.206 (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All-time table

I've removed the all-time table as it's not particularly useful due to different numbers of points being given for a win over the years, as well as various scoring systems being used in rugby union as a whole since the tournament was started in the 19th century. – PeeJay 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Most Trophies

The Most Trophies tag refers to the entire history of the tournament - a bit misleading since the page is called the Six Nations Championship. It's a useful statistic but I think it should be split into two 1) 6 Nations and 2) All Time. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it misleading? The competition hasn't changed other than France and Italy joining over the years. The name simply reflects the number of teams involved. The specifics about the number of titles are available in the "Results" section of the article. – PeeJay 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the answer - thanks. I found it misleading because Wales haven't won the most Six Nation Championship trophies which is what the page declares itself to be about. If the Page was called "The Home, 5 and 6 Nation Championships" it would be completely correct. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The tournament has never gone by that name. We use the most recent name, as that is the least confusing thing to do. And in fact, Wales have won the most trophies, it just happens that a lot of them came before the tournament became the Six Nations. Any name changes are (or at least should be) explained in the article prose, so I don't see an issue. – PeeJay 16:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There have been three different tournaments, not one. The title of this article, and the very first sentence about this article, refer exclusively to just ONE of those tournaments. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
That's nonsense. There has been just one tournament, which has expanded over time. It is the same tournament with different eras. – PeeJay 14:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
So Rugby World have it wrong? "Twenty years ago, before the first-ever Six Nations in 2000, we had qualms. Could this new competition ever be as good as the five-team tournament it was replacing?" David T Tokyo (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they do. Check the Six Nations site and see how they record the history of the tournament. I think you'll find it extends back beyond 2000. – PeeJay 18:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice but I checked the site before my previous post. The Six Nations Website refer to it - several times - as "The Championship". That's not how it's referred to here. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Surely it's just the same tournament with varying numbers of teams over the years? We don't regard it as a separate event in the 1930s when France were excluded, for example. Say Scotland won the 2021 tournament - no-one would say it was their first-ever title would they? --Bcp67 (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting point. I would argue - strongly - that many would be talking about Scotland's first-ever 6 Nations trophy. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Certainly when it went from 5 to 6 it was the same tournament, just more teams. Clearly with the event having the number of teams in the title meant a rename, otherwise I don't see it is any different to any other sports expansion. Nigej (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nigel. I'm sure that was also the same when it went from 4 to 5. But that's not my point. The 6 Nations championship is defined by the period of its existence - as the stats elsewhere on the page make only too clear. It is not the sum of its predecessors. That is something else entirely; an "all-time" stat (a perfectly valid stat, in my opinion).David T Tokyo (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The 6 Nations is just the current name of the event. Many sports events change their names but we still regard them as continuations of the previous event. The UEFA Champions League article covers the old European Cup too. Stats should cover the whole period. We can split into periods if that's useful but that is secondary. Nigej (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. UEFA does treat the Champions League as a separate era of the tournament in terms of classifying stats, but it's still a continuation of the same competition. – PeeJay 19:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and no one would claim Real Madrid have only won seven European Cup titles. – PeeJay 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course they wouldn't. We were calling it the European Cup (an abbreviation) back in the '50's. We've only been calling this the 6 Nations since 2000. HOWEVER ... I think this has run as far as it can. Let's leave it there - and thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I think there's value to recognising the different eras of the tournament, but the infobox isn't the place to do that. – PeeJay 19:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

These are currently the six highest-ranked teams in Europe - this introductory sentence should probably be changed or removed altogether. Georgians have passed Italy as of February and even if that proves to be temporary, we can't really always track who's in the lead and edit the article accordingly --Tokoko (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed it, the statement couldn't be supported by the ref cited, as you mention. Someone might be able to put in a better wording. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Most titles

Seems to be a problem with noting in the lead that both England and Wales have won 39 championships, including shared titles. While England hold the record for outright wins, both nations share the record for overall titles; while a shared title is (almost) impossible now, for much of the tournament's history it was possible and happened from time to time - three times in six seasons in the late 1980s, for example. I think this ought to be reflected. The infobox shows England having the most titles with 39, 29 outright and 10 shared - if we're going to show that, surely Wales' 39 championships (27 outright and 12 shared) should get equal credit? --Bcp67 (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, The problem is above all to consider the tournaments of 1888 and 1889 as completed whereas most serious sources consider them not completed and do not give winners for these two editions. Cf. #Discrepancies with French Wikipedia. GabrieL (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
May I point out that Wikipedia does give winners for these editions and there is no mention of those editions not being completed besides "England did not participate" in Tripple Crown and Calcutta Cup columns. The 1885, 1897, 1898 and 1972 Tournaments are the only one that are marked as "Not completed". Therefore I would say that we should either mention both nations as shared record holders or mark the 1888 and 1889 tournaments as "Not completed" just like the other "Not completed" editions. The mixed version is just confusing and considering that Wales may still win the 2021 edition we might end up with England and Wales mentioned as record holders with 39 and 40 wins, respecively?! --NainDeathlegs (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello NainDeathlegs, Refer to the sources mentioned on this section Talk:Six Nations Championship/Archive 1#Discrepancies with French Wikipedia, until 2020 (maybe change the next week), according to me, Wales has "only" 38 wins (not 39) and yes, 1888 and 1889 tournaments must be "not competed" and no with a winner team. GabrieL (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Welsh Rugby Union doesn't recognise their win in 1888 with "Wales have won the Championship outright in 1893... The first shared title was with Ireland in 1906" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.130.187 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The totals seem incorrect. Wales are listed as having 11 Home Nations wins (7 outright, 4 shared). But according to the current table, they only have 8 wins (6 outright, 2 shared). Greenman (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Home Nations begins again in 1932–1939 where Wales pick up another outright win, giving them 7 outright, but it should only be 3 shared, give that Welsh Rugby Union don't acknowledge the shared win in 1888 SFK64z (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

All the trophies contested between two teams

Regarding the Calcutta Cup, the Millennium Trophy, the Auld Alliance Cup etc., do these belong in the Championship section and in the winners section on the sidebar for each tournament? It seems to me it's giving undue weight to fixtures between particular teams, and it seems particularly excessive given that about half the fixtures in the tournament now have these trophies. I don't think it really reflects the notability of the trophies to give them such high standing. With the Calcutta Cup maybe it has some on account of its age, but if you look at this BBC article the Garibaldi Trophy isn't even mentioned. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60281535 Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six_Nations_Championship/Archive_1&oldid=1215842068"