Talk:2013 Six Nations Championship

Media coverage

Most of the recent feedback from this page is looking for details of media coverage - I've made a start to this section, but hopefully others can expand. For reference, the 2012 section is at 2012 Six Nations Championship#Media coverage. Amkilpatrick (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

Why do we need all this trivia? Gnevin (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Those post match statistical comments are quite excruciating. Let's have a proper prose summary of the tournament, not bar bore snippets. Kevin McE (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Facts

Can we check "facts" before adding them as notes please. Just because it says something on one website, doesn't necessarily make it true, it needs verifying. This morning I've removed a note to the effect that England's 6point winning margin in Dublin was the smallest in 6N history, which it clearly isn't (a smaller win less than a year ago), and another saying that Scotland's win over Italy is their all-time biggest HN/5N/6N margin - also untrue, exceeded by a win in 1986 for one. If you're going to put something in, (a) cite it and (b) make sure it's correct or else the credibility of the article suffers. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I miss understood the fact when I read it. It said the it was 'the smallest scoring game in 6 Nations history' not the 'smallest winning margin'. Rugby.change (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm going to change it slightly to reflect that its purely the 6N part of the competition rather than the entire history. It's still not cited though. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As per above do we need this trivia? Gnevin (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say some of it is worthwhile. Noting that France haven't lost their opening two games since the 6N began may be of some interest and it adds some prose to a mass of stats. I took out a couple of bits of trivia this morning relating to individual players which looked a bit irrelevant to the 6N as a team competition. Not up to me alone though and would be grateful for anyone else's opinion. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Week-by-week standings

Deleted...restored... what is going on??

Are we to take the discussion at Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship as consensus for removal? If so, let's leave it out. If not, it goes back in and stays in until a final decision is reached. Deleting and reverting (without a reason) doesn't make this article look clever at all. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Separate page for match details?

I noticed that in 2011 we had a separate page for the detailed match stats - 2011 Six Nations Championship fixtures, with just a summary of the matches on the main article. This wasn't repeated for 2012 but does have the merit of making the main article a bit more compact. Worth doing again for 2013? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes would prefer to follow the practice for 2011. Jowaninpensans (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the point. The article isn't overly large right now, and even if it was, splitting the match details into another article would create another article that was overly large. No point having two articles when one will suffice. – PeeJay 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. Ultimately making a new article for fixtures would do the same as if the fixtures was on the main page. Either way it will roughly have the same amount of pages give or take a few. Just leave them on the main article. Rugby.change (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

substitutions icon line-up

What does everyone think of about the recent edit regarding the substitution icons? They are useually lined in a single row unless one person has been substitutioned multiple times. The new edit has the substitutions line up diffrentlu, which I perssonally think makes it look messey, specifically the Scotland v Ireland match. Rugby.change (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't new, it has been accepted practice for years. Plus, if a substitution is made, I would find it more useful to have the icons line up with each other as it would provide a more instantaneous indicator of who came on for whom. – PeeJay 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's new, how hasn't it been used on any of the previous Six Nations tournaments? Rugby.change (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the single-column format has been in use for the 2011 and 2012 tournaments (no full line-ups for 2010 or earlier), plus the 2012 end-of-year article - I haven't looked any further than that. Only cases I can see where more than one column is used is where individual players has been involved in multiple substitutions. Currently the Scotland v Ireland match here actually appears to have different formats for the Scotland and Ireland teams which clearly needs sorting out quickly. My own preference is for single-column format. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the 2007 and 2011 Rugby World Cup pages. I distinctly remember using this format for those. – PeeJay 20:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK can see that - I took a look at a couple of pools from 2007 and 2011 and can see that the multi-column format is there. What's actually at issue in this discussion? The multi-column thing works where a player comes on and then off, or is involved in a blood-bin sub - it has to work as there is no other way. If there's no player involved in any multiple subsitution, it's a single column. Is there actually anything to debate? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it looks messey and that it's not really needed. Users said the Week-by-week standings wasn't nessessery. The multi colum for the substitutions is also not nessessery. Rugby.change (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The week-by-week standings weren't necessary because they didn't serve any ultimate purpose. This discussion is completely different since it deals with aesthetics rather than the inclusion of unnecessary information. In this case, the information is already there, we are just presenting it better this way. – PeeJay 11:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2013 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120501160841/http://press.bbcamerica.com:80/program.jsp?id=60715 to http://press.bbcamerica.com/program.jsp?id=60715

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Six Nations Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127000709/http://universalsports.com/2013/01/11/2013-rugby-schedule-on-universal-sports/ to http://universalsports.com/2013/01/11/2013-rugby-schedule-on-universal-sports/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)