Talk:2014 Six Nations Championship

In the news
This article has been included as the base article for an item at In the news/Candidates for 15 March. But it has been suggested that some text should be added to the introduction - not full match summaries for all the games, but something "explaining .. how Ireland won the title". Would any one of the regular editors here care to suggest a few sentences? It would help to place rugby on the front page. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * e.g. "Going into the final day three teams could have still won the championship - Ireland, England,or France. In the end Ireland hung on to win their game against France by just 2 points and secure the championship (on points difference over England)." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have now added some prose. Not sure how more is put in without breaking the rule that the Introductory section should only summarise what is already in the article main body (unless it's just score-lines written in prose, which seems a bit pointless?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It goes a long ways to making the article acceptable.  Think of it this way - if you knew nothing about Rugby, saw the ITN headline and came here to learn more, what would you expect to find?  At bare minimum I think that would include something like what you just wrote.  As to what is still missing, I would expect to find Ireland + England + France's overall record since they all factored into deciding who won.  I would also expect to learn what England did on the last day (or if they had already finished playing, note that instead). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ideally, there would be brief (one paragraph) summaries of the individual matches as well (in the body naturally), or at least of the decisive last day matches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I might be tempted to look at Rugby union, I guess. Bit ideally, yes, I agree that would be best. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how learning the rules of the game would tell me anything about how this particular tournament was won. I would expect any article about an event that crowns a winner to tell me something about how X won - not just that they won, but who they beat and how they beat them or how they achieved the fastest time or how they achieved the best score, etc.  Just saying "Ireland won" is not nearly as informative as "Ireland finished the round robin tournament with a 4 and 1 record, losing only to X.  England finished with the same record, losing only to X.  Ireland was declare dthe winner by virtue of a superior goal differential." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article lately? What do you propose now still needs adding? I was just suggesting that a reader who wanted to learn more about the game in general could easily do so. If they wanted match-by-match reports I'd expect them to follow the external links. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read it. From my previous comment: "As to what is still missing, I would expect to find Ireland + England + France's overall record since they all factored into deciding who won.  I would also expect to learn what England did on the last day (or if they had already finished playing, note that instead)."  I gather the events went something like this: France had beat England, but lost to Wales.  England had beat Ireland.  This meant all three were 3-1 and aliev to win the championship.  England won early in the day by a margin which meant Ireland merely had to win to be champion and effectively elimianted France.  Ireland then won the night game by a margin of 2 and with it the overall crown with a goal differential of +83 to Englands +73.  While this could be figured out from the body, it would take a good deal of effort to determine - much better to just say it up front.  It wouldn't hurt to explicitly say the event uses a round robin format with goal differential as the only(?) tie breaker.
 * As to the "I'd expect them to follow the external links" comment - that could be said of any artcile on any subject. By that logic, the article would be complete if it merely contained a single external link to a website describing the tournament.  Obviously no one can force anyone to add match summaries, but if you want advice on how to improve the article, adding match summaries is certainly a way to do it.  Textual summaries of events convey information in a way a final score+goal times+other stats cannot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, every team's record "factored into deciding who won." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear what I meant.  I even basically wrote the text - it just need the correct details added. If you aren't interested in my comments, just say so from the beginning instead of asking for suggestions and then nitpicking my choice of words. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's quite clear to you. I don't see how summaries of the final three matches, or the record of just those three teams, would fairly summarise the entire championship. This is not "nitpicking" just because I'm "not interested" in what you say. If you feel that strongly that this extra text is required in the introduction, I suggest you go ahead and put it in. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Different Triple Crown and title winners
Looking at the main Six Nations page, I can't see another tournament where one team won the Triple Crown, but a different Home Nation side won the title (France has won overall plenty of times when a TC was won, but every other TC winner has also won the title). I think this is noteworthy but I can't find any articles for reference, anyone care to have a look for one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.132 (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. A link back to Triple Crown (rugby union) might be a start. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)