Talk:Rugby: France wins Six Nations

This should have more than one source to avoid allegations of plagiarism. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a couple of questions (it may be worth just reading the last paragraph, the ones before that are mainly rambling with a small couple of points in there somewhere). I tried to provide a brief summary of each match, and their bearing on the tournament, and while writing, I was using three things as a basis. One was the BBC News article I cited, as well as individual match reports, linked from that article, to remind me of key points in play, another was the Wikipedia article on the 2007 Six Nations Championship, and the third was what I personally had seen from watching the three matches on TV.
To start with the third, I personally had no idea how that would be sourced, as, in essence, there was no source (the source was my memory, so to speak), and it didn't seem to follow any policy that I could find. So unless you'd recommend anything...?
To the second one, I didn't include it, as there was already a link to the Wikipedia article in the text, making another link redundant. Also, I was uncertain as to what the policy for citing (or not) Wikipedia was, and having had a brief look through some I felt were relevant, still had no idea what it might be. Therefore, I assumed it would follow the same as, or similar to, w:WP:SELF. Again, any recommendations?
Final point. Having now followed the external link from the Wikipedia article, I get to the Official 6 Nations site, which may provide a second source. In particular, this, and its linked pages, would have been the sort of thing I would have used. However, this to me causes a separate issue. Is it right to list something as a source, if it wasn't actually used as a source. I have to emphasise in this case, that the site I've mentioned is something I would have used, but didn't. I suppose it could be considered as a source through association, as I was using a Wikipedia article also listing it as a source, but again, your opinion would be nice. --Thanks, and sorry for the length, 86.130.29.129 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC).