Jump to content

Talk:The Rugby Championship/Archive 1

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

Worksheet

I have created a worksheet of all point-scorers in the Tri Nations at Talk:Tri Nations Series/Points Sheet - it is certainly too much detail for the main article, but if kept up-to-date, it can be used to make sure the "Top 10 Point Scorers" also stays up-to-date. —Stormie 03:10, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Nice one Stormie. Do you volunteer? ):- Moriori 03:16, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for sure. I'm a sad geek, I love hurrying to update Wikipedia after a game. Dale only beat me to it last weekend because I was out Saturday night, I taped the game and didn't get to watch it until Sunday afternoon. :-) —Stormie 03:51, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've never edited something on wikipedia before, I changed the 2005 tri nations scoreboard (Sth Africa I believe has 14 points, not 13 (according to all blacks site (http://www.allblacks.com/fixtures/) but if this is wrong, please change.

Thanks for jumping in, and I hope you'll stay to make many more edits! But I'm afraid in this case, the All Blacks site is wrong. :-( South Africa have 12 points from their 3 wins, but only one bonus point, for their narrow loss to New Zealand. They failed to get a four-try bonus point in any of their games. So their total is actually 13 points. —Stormie 10:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Old Series

This page is getting rather long. Perhaps it would be a good idea to put the old results of past series into their own pages? It's all good information but does it really need to be on the one page?Lisiate 23:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lisiate. I propose that the results in the main article be trimmed down as shown below for the 1996 series. However, the detail won't be lost because it is accessible by clicking the link on the title heading. GringoInChile 14:21, Aug 7, 2005 (UTC)
===1996 Series===
　 Pld W D L PF PA PD BP Pts
New Zealand 4 4 0 0 119 60 +59 1 17
South Africa 4 1 0 3 70 84 -14 2 6
Australia 4 1 0 3 71 116 -45 2 6
　
July 6, 1996 New Zealand 43 - 6 Australia Wellington, New Zealand
July 13, 1996 Australia 21 - 16 South Africa Sydney, Australia
July 20, 1996 New Zealand 15 - 11 South Africa Christchurch, New Zealand
July 27, 1996 Australia 25 - 32 New Zealand Brisbane, Australia
August 3, 1996 South Africa 25 - 19 Australia Bloemfontein, South Africa
August 10, 1996 South Africa 18 - 29 New Zealand Cape Town, South Africa


  • That looks really good, I'm in favour. Might pay to wait until a couple of other contributors comment on it before we put it into effect. Lisiate 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier. Yes, I'm in complete agreement, we should split the fine details of the games off into separate articles, and I do like GringoInChile's design of a main article summary section. I believe we have the best collection of Tri Nations info available anywhere on the internet (certainly when I originally collected the match info I had to trawl through a number of different sources), and as a result it really has gotten way too big for a single article. One suggestion: we should point to the full detail articles using the standard {{see details}} template, like this: —Stormie 01:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Further information: Tri Nations 1996 Series
  • I like Stormie's suggestion about using the details template. I also think that if that each seies has its own article, as we are proposing, people could add more descriptive information to individual matches. I propose that if nobody objects by the end of this week (20th August) we start implementing the changes. Or should we have a vote? --GringoInChile 02:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah, if nobody objects, just do it. Leave the votes for when there are people actually calling for a different course of action. :-) —Stormie 04:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Agree :) Greenman 08:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Argh!

re: Tri Nations Series/Point Sheet - moved here from Talk:Tri Nations Series/Points Sheet --Stormie 14:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, this sure looks like a talk page, not a well-rounded wikipedia article. Can I ask y'all to move it into the talk or wikipedia namespaces, or into someone's userspace. It's showing up on Special:CrossNamespaceLinks, which makes insert sympathetic figure here cry. Thanks for your help. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Aggregate table

I created a template for the aggregate table because it also appears in the All Blacks article. This way the table only needs to be modified once to update the two articles or any other articles that may subsequently include the table (like the SA and Oz national team articles). The table can be modified at Template:Tri Nations Aggregate --GringoInChile 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tournaments

I'm going to start breaking each individual tournament off into their own articles. This page is too long now. Cvene64 03:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Try scorers

What is everyones opinion on this section? I think it should be shortened to something like the top ten try scorers, or, players with double-digit tries. Its rather crowded towards the end, and it will get way bigger now that the 2006 competition has expanded. Thoughts? Cvene64 05:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Partly agree with above. say 5 or more tries be listed. one try scorer is ridiculous! Michellecrisp (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, finally Cvene64 gets a response! :-) But seriously: sounds good. I believe that originally it was done like that so it was maintainable (i.e. who would notice that someone scored their 5th try and became eligible for the list, if we didn't have a list of those who had scored 4 tries?) But since we have Talk:Tri Nations Series/Points Sheet which I update after each game, that's not a problem. So I concur: five tries is probably a good benchmark, that trims it down to a reasonably-sized list. --Stormie (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'll remove 4 or less try scorers now. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Rugby Union Tri Nations → Tri Nations – There are only two meanings for the requested page, so there is no huge need for a disambiguation, as the other competition can be mentioned at the top of the page, thus serving the same purpose, but getting the majority of users to the page they want quicker. Cvene64 06:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support I think this page really needs to be moved to Tri Nations, with a note to direct users to the league competition if they are looking for it. I believe the union competition is the more notable of the two; a Google search for "Tri Nations" bring sup mainly union content, with the league competition appearing three pages in. In addition the union one is much older than the league competition. Most users coming to Tri Nations will be looking for Rugby Union Tri Nations, so whats the point in giving it an akward title when we don't have to, as Rugby Union Tri Nations is rarely if never used, whereas Rugby League Tri-Nations is used (Official website uses it). The union competition being at the page, with a See Rugby League Tri-Nations will serve the same purpose as the current disambiguation does for users searching for the league one. Cvene64 06:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per Cvene64.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Google searches are not proof sufficient. Grinner 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided the present title is ridiculous but I'd prefer Tri nations series which I believe is the official title and would leave room for a dismbig page for other uses.GordyB 13:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the proposal would breach the following terms of WP:NPOV: [it] should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Therefore Tri Nations should point to a disambiguation page where each competition is given equal exposure. As a resident of Great Britain (as I'm sure many users of English Wikipedia are) I'm most interested in the competition that my country is involved in, not some obscure southern hemisphere carry-on! Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. NPOV doesn't really apply here as we do have a primary topic rule, but in this case it looks like it's maybe 60/40 primary, not enough of a distinction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments I believe there is a much bigger distinction that 60/40. Also, whilst Google is obviously not a basis for a move, one cannot deny it can give a very good indication of what the most popular web pages/searches are - there are 24 straight pages devoted to the union tournament, with league having its first page as 25. Even the Rugby Union Tri Nations, and 2006 Tri Nations are listed in these first 24 pages, so I'm guessing they are getting a lot more traffic than Rugby League Tri-Nations.
To go over my other points: Union had the name first and have a longer history, whereas League first used it in 1999, and then put it on hold, and it was not played again for another five years (2004). Again, I don't see the problem with union having Tri Nations, with For the rugby league competition, see Rugby League Tri-Nations...it does the exact same thing as the current page does! However, though it serves the same purpose for league, it will rid union of the very bad title it has at the moment - remember that Rugby League Tri-Nations is the name used offically on NRL.com, whereas Rugby Union Tri Nations is very weird....Cvene64 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Rugby League World Cup was held 33 years before the Rugby Union World Cup... don't see that being taken into consideration. On NRL.com, you'll find if you scroll over to the "Rep Games" subheading, you'll find that it's simply called the "Tri Nations".Pcpp 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yorkshire, I think that the fact that in its relatively short history, the RLTN will have been put on hold twice, says a lot about it's importance in the league world. It's all very well to say its because of world cups/All Golds tours and so on, but the RLTN is much less important (speaking, generally) than the NRL, State of Origin, Challenge Cup and Superleague. Whereas the RUTN (Bledisloe included) is one of the most important parts of rugby union. Cvene64 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Far from it: as the Tri-Nations is contested by the three premier RL test nations it is seen as more important than the RLWC, where the home nations (each a non-test nation) play separately. I believe in union the RWC is contested by full test nations (which I believe England is in union) and as such is the main rugby union competition. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yorkshire, your still missing my point, the Tri Nations is at the lower end of the scale for league fans, for some, the season basically ends after the NRL final. Southern hemisphere union fans live for the Tri Nations. Cvene64 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
In the northern hemisphere, however, (certainly since union turned pro) fans are either rugby league or rugby union. Rugby League fans see the Tri-Nations as an annual World Championship (given that the last RLWC was so long ago I don't remember it, and it was only England, a non test nation, that played in the last one anyway) and it is the culmination of our Rugby League season (usually a disappointment for Great Britain, but that's beside the point!) To handle the naming of the articles from a southern hemisphere perspective would be no better than a rugby union bias, and certainly not WP:NPOV. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Its not really anything to do with hemispheres, but instead the traffic which pages are getting, with the union one clearly having a majority. I'm in no way trying to exclude British users, its just a coincidence that the other five teams are southern hemisphere. Comparing the nations; in Australia the union competition is more popular (though media coverage is arguably the same in Brisbane/Sydney, though the union team plays at an 80,000 stadium in Sydney, league in a 40,000...); in New Zealand rugby union is the national sport, and the RLTN receieves little media coverage at all. That leaves the other two nations; South Africa (union) and Great Britain (league), whilst there were some good crowds and so on when it has been held in Britain, in overall terms of national importance, it would be hard to say that it is even comparable with South Africa in the union competition, perhaps mostly contributed by league's small presence outside the north of England, whereas rugby union is popular basically all over South Africa. I would like to point out that no opposer has yet commented on my reasoning that it serves league the exact same purpose, but allows for union to maintain a correct title. This is an encyclopedia, and this move should not be prevented so union does not "win" over league, which is really silly. Cheers Cvene64 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? League is far more popular than Union in Australia. It's not even a close competition. League always recieves precedence over Union in Sydney & Brisbane media coverage. The NRL is the biggest "rugby" competition in the world based on crowds - averages and totals. The ANZAC Test featuring Australia and New Zealand, shown delayed in two states, on Nine, outrated the Cook Cup Game 1 (shown live across the nation) in rugby union. Rugby union matches (outside of internationals) aren't even shown on free to air television in Australia, while league matches are shown every week on FTA and Pay TV (39 of the top 40 Pay TV programs last year were rugby league matches). Here's a list of the top rating programs last year for your benefit: link (notice league has 4/40 top programs in metropolitan areas, 9/40 top programs in regional areas and 39/40 on Pay TV... feel free to find any references to rugby union on that page. Good luck) Pcpp 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you on about? Pulling all these random claims out about tv ratings has nothing to do with it. This is not really about the NRL or State of Origin, I was merely saying they are far more important than the Rugby League Tri Nations, which gets minimal media coverage/attention/crowds/respect. Its about the Tri Nations mate not ANZAC test or Cook Cup, which have nothing to do with anything. Again no one has really responded to any of my comments about what benefits and effects the move will have. So could admin please take that into consideration. I hope this is moved on the account of reason, rather than pure vote as no one has yet commented on the fact the move doesnt effect rugby league's link, and since its obvious there is a primary topic, it really should be okay. Cheers. Cvene64 17:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Assuming you're from Brisbane (seeing you have made a lot of edits to Brisbane Grammar School, check today's Sunday Mail (30/7/06). Page 99 and 103 had articles on the Rugby League Tri-Nations (it was simply called the Tri-Nations - this is 4 months before the tournament and while the RU Tri Nations hype is in full effect. You're the one pulling claims out of no where - what do you gauge this minimal media coverage/attention/crowds respect of? Where's the proof that the Rugby Union Tri Nations page is so popular that it should not be a disambiguation link? These claims are all based on your obvious bias towards rugby union. If we moved all pages based on this ridiculous logic, the World Cup would redirect to the FIFA World Cup, which is obviously by far the most popular World Cup, but it wouldn't affect any other World Cup link either! Don't lie, it's not reason, its RU bias. Pcpp 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2

I heard the rugby union Tri Nations mentioned on UK television over the weekend (the first I have ever heard of it, outside of Wikipedia) and it was referred to as "the Tri Nations rugby union series" (with a sort of pause for emphasis around the words rugby union). Would this be considered an acceptable compromise to the pro-rugby union lobby? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support, people were complaining about the title Rugby Union Tri Nations (see archived move debate, above) and I would have thought this sounded better for them. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Suppoort appears to sound better than what we have now. I also prefere it to the old move choice because it makes it clear what the artilcle is about. --Edgelord 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, keep some sort of standard or precedent in name titles. Usally on Wikipedia, the name of the sport is first, from what I have seen - FIFA World Cup, Cricket World Cup, Super 14 Final etc.--HamedogTalk|@ 23:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose' - I don't see the need for 'rugby union' to be in the title. It just makes the link harder to remember 'Tri Nations series' is better.GordyB 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the name was at Tri Nations Series, and then waas moved to bein line with the League tournament. However, since people searching for these tournaments will likely not search for I say we at least take the old name back of Tri Nations Series. The name Rugb Union Tri Nations is terrible for multiple reasons. Cvene64 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any point in it being in line with the league tournament or including 'rugby union' in the title. It is called 'Tri Nations Series' and so that should be the article name. It is sufficiently different from the other 'Tri nations' not to need further disambiguation.GordyB 19:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, the article should be at the page Tri Nations with a dab at the top of that page to the league tournament. --Bob 18:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That proposal has already been discussed and the decision was no move. This I felt was the next best solution. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I know and it was ridiculous. This should be moved back to Tri Nations Series as the original move here was done unilaterally without discussion. --Bob 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Tri Nations Series

I really must protest Tri Nations Series being a redirect to Tri Nations. First of all, Yorkshire Phoenix moved Tri Nations Series to Rugby Union Tri Nations, I don't know why, but I suspect it was to make the names even/or fair or something like that. My point is that very few people will type in Tri Nations Series, whereas as the above discussion resolved, people typing in Tri Nations, may be looking for the league version. However, there was over 200 links broken when Yorkshire then made Tri Nations Series a redirect to Tri Nations. The move in the first place was a bad one, but honestly, making Tri Nations Series go to Tri Nations is overboard, as it is not a common name, like Tri Nations. Cvene64 07:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this statement by Cvene64. This should be brought up at the requested moves page. The move away from that page was carried out unilaterally without consensus. Also, there is a Tri Nations Series champions featured list using the original and correct name. --Bob 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived 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 no move. --Muchness (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 3

Rugby Union Tri Nations → Tri Nations Series – This was the original name of the article before it was moved without discussion. It is also the official name of the competition and IMO sufficiently different from various other Tri Nations competitions. I will contact everybody who voted on the previous moves and give them a chance to vote.GordyB 13:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The request failed with 6 supports and 9 opposes. --Dijxtra 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Before the page was moved there was a dab link to the league comp so that anybody who typed in 'Tri Nations Series' could with one click find the league equivalent. Whn Yorkshire Phoenix moved this article the dab link was removed and the TNS page became a redirect. Anybody who searches under 'Tri Nations Series' is currently directed straight to the union comp with no dab link to the league version. I can't see how the suggested alternative is worse for league fans.GordyB 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Tri Nations Series should divert to the disambiguation page, but someone kept reverting it and I wasn't prepared to get into an edit war. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I've checked this Aussie site (http://www.tri-nations.com.au/) briefly but cannot find 'Tri Nations Series' used anywhere on it. The RFL page on the rugby league Tri Nations is 404-ing on me. I do not believe that 'Tri Nations Series' is used by any league organisation in any official capacity with or without a hyphen (except perhaps with Gillette Tri-Nations Series). The vast majority of references are either to 'Rugby League Tri-Nations' or 'Tri-nations'. Surely a link to the league comp (as there was previously) would alleviate any problem. It would not be any faster to find the league article if 'Tri Nations Series' was a disambig. GordyB 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this years edition of the Rugby League Tri-Nations will be the last time it's refered to as such. It isn't being held in 2007 due to tours nor in 2008 due to the RL World Cup and the 2009 competition sees the addition of France which would then convert it into something like the "Four Nations"! --GringoInChile 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of the sport is not required when talking about competitions. There is no policy on this. However, in the case of the Rugby League Tri-Nations, the name of the competition includes the name of the sport. See Image:Tri nations rl logo.jpg (with the hyphen). --Bob 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the official site is at (http://www.trinations.com.au/) and not (http://www.tri-nations.com.au/]) On that site, it is refered to as the Gilette Trinations, not the Gilette Rugby League Trinations. Specifically, it says "The 2006 Gilette Trinations kicks off on October 14 in Auckland". On the RFL website here it is also refered to as the Tri-Nations and not the Rugby League Trinations. They NRL site here also refers to the Trinations and not the Rugby League Trinations. Diito the ARL site here. These are official sites, so that should kill speculation. --dan, dan and dan 05:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tri-nations yes but not 'Tri Nations Series'.GordyB 08:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Examples where Tri-nations series are used in the RL context: 1 2 3 4 Pcpp 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's another, from The Times - [1]--dan, dan and dan 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
All right fair enough. I've not come across 'Tri nations series' like that before but I can now see your point.GordyB 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If one were to look past the spin, one would see that the last five sites that Pcpp and dan, dan and dan jointly provided were subpages under the category of Rugby League. The first three that dan, dan and dan either had the logo of the tournament which clearly states Gillette Rugby League Tri-Nations or referred to the tournament as the Gillette Tri Nations, quelling speculation of which tournament is in question. However, the rugby union tri nations is almost never referred to as such, and thus should not be the title of the article. For this reason, it should not be called SANZAR Tri nations or variations thereof. --Bob 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you think that I am trying to mislead. I truly am not. I was refering to the text on the website, not the logo. As for common usage, I can speak for Brisbane-ites and say that the union tri-nations is usually refered to as "the tri-nations", just as the league one is. It has never been ambiguous in conversation as they are played at different times of the year. (Just personal experience there.)--dan, dan and dan 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is interesting to note that there are more google results for "Rugby League Tri-Nations series" than "Rugby Union Tri-Nations series", "Rugby Tri-Nations Series" and even "Tri-Nations series". Pcpp 10:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising, there are probably more hits for 'rugby league' than 'rugby union' but then union usually markets itself just as 'rugby'. The union series never uses 'rugby union' in its title a doesn't hyphenate 'Tri nations'.GordyB 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
(exactly --Bob 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
Notice that's why I also searched for "Rugby Tri-Nations Series" and "Tri-Nations series" - "Rugby League Tri Nations series" has more than BOTH of them. Pcpp 06:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When the user above stated On that site, it is refered to as the Gilette Trinations, not the Gilette Rugby League Trinations was he intentionally trying to mislead us? If one were to look at the logo sitting at the top left hand corner of that page what do we read? Gillette Rugby League Tri-Nations. Then, when we click on the history link we have this: Rugby League Tri Nations. --Bob 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What the logo says and what a competition is known by are two completely different things. The logo for the Super League says "engage Super Rugby League" but who calls it that? As for the history section: in a historical context they can't use the sponsor and so have shown the common courtesy to disambiguate the competition. All we are asking for is reciprocation. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
How do you know? There is no possible way that you can even begin to state something like that without having exact knowledge. I suppose that by stating that you have evidence to back up your claim? --Bob 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be a consensus. What does everybody think about 'Sanzar Tri Nations'.GordyB 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it called that (but then again I'd never heard of it until I came on here anyway). Distinguishing it from the other Tri Nations competitions by the teams that take part makes just as much sense as anything else to me. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No. It is never called that. --Bob 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the only name that will satisfy everyone is to move the name to "Tri Nations Series (rugby union)", which isn't very elegant but preserves the name and is common wikipedia practice — even being used for the article of a country: Georgia (country). --GringoInChile 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I dare say we have a compromise? Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It couldn't be that simple. Personally I don't like brackets because I can never remember whether the contents begin with a capital (Rugby Union) or lowercase (rugby union) and so get my links wrong. - GordyB 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I like this compromise. we would leave the rugby union in lower case within the brackets. --Bob 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Lower case definitely better than upper case.GordyB 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If "Requested move 3" is rejected (and it seems the discussion has got bogged down as did the previous two requests) then I'll make a 4th request for this new compromise. Or do people think I should go ahead anyway? --GringoInChile 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should vote again, it will prevent any future arguments.GordyB 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Tri-nations Series (rugby union) and Tri-nations Series (rugby league) would be an appropriate compromise.--dan, dan and dan 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time this vote was closed so that we can move on to Move Proposal 4 --GringoInChile 15:25, 14 September 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.

Archive

Does anyone mind if the move discussions are archived to Talk:Rugby Union Tri Nations/Archive 1 ? People can still refer to it but it will make the main page a normal size... Cvene64 10:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think archiving would be a good idea. There are discussions on this page that are over two years old hoopydinkConas tá tú? 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The image Image:Tri Nations.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Will True Visions be showing the Tri nations in HD in the near future

Will True Visions be showing the Tri nations in HD in the near future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.77.176 (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting move?

Looking through the Tri Nations disambiguation page, it appears that this article meets Wikipedia's primary topic criteria as significantly more well-known and widely used than other Tri Nations articles. Is another move discussion warranted? --Muchness (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue not, since the Tri Nations will be renamed soon when/if Argentina join, so it will soon lose this status. Greenman (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE UPDATE THE TRI-NATIONS OVERALL TABLE TO REFLECT 2010 RESULTS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.238.48 (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In the info there is currently a logo which includes the sponsor Castrol. I'd prefer if we used a non-sponsored logo. The first reason is that the sponsors tend to chance over time. The second reason is that there are different sponsors in each country. Can I suggest we use this logo instead: File:Tri Nations.png

I also think that each 'year page' should also use that logo. Crazydude22 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No complaints, so I will change the logos to non-sponsored ones. Crazydude22 (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Page Maintenance

At the moment there are now two separate pages - Tri Nations (rugby union) and The Rugby Championship. Any suggestions what we do with them? I propose moving the info on the Tri Nations (rugby union) page to The Rugby Championship and putting a redirect on this page. Surely no need to have 2 separate articles? It's not a new competition, it's the same competition that's been expanded and rebranded. Thoughts? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the article be renamed?

Given that Argentina will be joining the Tournament in it's next edition, should the article be renamed to Four Nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.69.213.193 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Super 12 and Super 14 are rolled up into Super Rugby. The Six Nations Championship article covers the competition prior to Italy joining as the sixth team. Do we know what the official name for the tournament will be from 2012 onward, though? Will it be just "Four Nations"? --Stormie (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like the official name is going to be "The Rugby Championship"[2] AIRcorn (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
At the moment there are now two separate pages - Tri Nations (rugby union) and The Rugby Championship. Any suggestions what we do with them? I propose moving the info on the Tri Nations (rugby union) page to The Rugby Championship and putting a redirect on this page. Surely no need to have 2 separate articles? It's not a new competition, it's the same competition that's been expanded and rebranded. Thoughts? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it seems better to have just one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.248.205 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Rugby Championship → ? –

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.

I've removed the following (again), why? Because they seem like ads, at least to me.

wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 07:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Top try scorers outdated

I see Bryan Habana is not on the list of top try scorers, although he should be 3rd on the current list, with 14 tries (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_rugby_union_tries_by_Bryan_Habana ). I'm not sure where to get the updated stats, however. Can someone who does please update this table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.113.93 (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rugby_Championship/Archive_1&oldid=1137241851"