Talk:2015 Six Nations Championship

Content Dispute

There have been some complaints about the content of the article voiced at User talk:PeeJay2K3 and User talk:Joseph2302, on the issue of statistics. As the issue affects everyone editing this article, I thought that you should be notified. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statistics section

The debate is about how much detail should be added to the Statistics section of this page (and equivalent pages such as 2014 Six Nations Championship, 2013 Six Nations Championship etc.) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not usually one to invoke WP:WAX, but when it comes to listing top scorers in other sports articles, the top 10 is usually sufficient. See various seasons of the UEFA Champions League as an example. Going beyond that ultimately leads to unwieldy tables, the bottom sections of which are of no use to anyone other than stats anoraks. – PeeJay 13:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The tables in question are at the bottom of the page, so not in the way, and I believe it is useful to list all points scorers, whilst a list of 20 people is no more difficult to read than a list of 10 people.

I don't want to regurgitate the previous arguments, so the links for them are here: User talk:Joseph2302#WP:NOTSTATS and User talk:PeeJay2K3#Rugby Statistics. I stand by these posts, but would like other people's views (not just ours) to be heard. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Joseph2302. Listing 20 or so players will be no more difficult than listing 10 players. With the statistics placed at the bottom, they are not I the way and harms no one. If readers only want 10 then read the first 10. We as editors are meant to just give sources facts, it's not up to us to say how much or how little the detail of the facts are. So basically if we give the full facts (Statistics), then readers can choose if they want to read the first 10, the last 10 or even just the top 1. Atleast the option is there for readers to see all of them. And I know that the section isn't sources, but I have been looking for one to back it up. Rugby.change (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's not going to be "20 or so" by the end of the tournament, is it? The number of players who scored just one try in 2013 was over 20 on its own, making the entire list of try-scorers for that year around 30 players long. Then when you add in players who scored from kicks for the overall points scorers table, it gets even longer. Looking at the points scorers table for 2013, it takes up more than two full screens on my computer (obviously this won't be the same for everyone, but this is potty). It doesn't matter if the table are "out of the way" at the bottom of the article, they're unwieldy regardless of where they are. – PeeJay 15:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Just so people know, I'm taking a WikiBreak. It's not just this argument, but others where other users basically calling me useless because I'm new. I stand by what I've said, but won't be adding to it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 you shouldn't have to take a WikiBreak because you are new. I have been doing this for 4 years and I as of far you have done nothing wrong. I agree with your argument with the statistics on the Six Nations. Rugby.change (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not really just this, there's been a string of other people wrongly reverting me, and then being like "well I'm more experienced than you, so I must be right". There's a proper post on My Userpage about it, I'd prefer not to discuss it on here (as this page should be about the Rugby Stats argument). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

England v France notes

I would just like to say that the bullet point in the England v France notes section saying that "France's total was only the second time in Six Nations history that a team scored 30 points and lost" is incorrect, despite being cited as such by the BBC. If you look at the list of six nations results on the ESPN website (http://stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/records/team/most_points_match_not_won.html?id=2;type=trophy) it is actually the 5th time it has happened in the Six Nations. Plyahlh (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the big problems with Wikipedia isn't it? Stuff has to be "verifiable" rather than factually accurate. I'll delete the note completely.--Bcp67 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 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://archive.is/20150409234221/http://www.espn.co.uk/six-nations-2015/rugby/player/149319.html to http://www.espn.co.uk/six-nations-2015/rugby/player/149319.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150409234216/http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1;opposition=20;orderby=date;orderbyad=reverse;team=9;template=results;type=team;view=match to http://stats.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/index.html?class=1%3Bopposition%3D20%3Borderby%3Ddate%3Borderbyad%3Dreverse%3Bteam%3D9%3Btemplate%3Dresults%3Btype%3Dteam%3Bview%3Dmatch

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) 05:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)