Jump to content

Talk:United Rugby Championship

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PARAKANYAA (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 9 February 2024 (Assessment: banner shell, South Africa (Low) (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2006-07

Anyone interested in creating a 2006-07 Magners League article? All other major domestic/international comps have seasonal articles, as well as many which are probably not as big as the CL, so the 06/07 CL definantly needs to be created..Cvene64 12:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we shouldn't have one so I've created it. Please help expand it, add references etc. Alexj2002 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV rights

Who holds the TV rights? matturn 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC

BBV Wales broadcast games, BBC Scotland and Alba probably also do. RTE in the Republic of Ireland. I don't know in Northern Ireland but probably the BBC again.GordyB 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setanta Sports have rights. Londo06 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 and beyond

Borders leaving, is there any plans to add a new franchise to replace them or cull further clubs, ie Welsh and Irish strugglers? Londo06 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some plans to try to save the Borders, it is not necessarily over yet. Connacht is always threatened with closure but the Welsh regions are fairly secure to my knowledge. There will be no new Irish teams as Ireland only has four provinces, I can't see any new Welsh teams either the old Celtic Warriors franchise owner has gone over to rugby league and the other big teams are tied into existing regions. Only Wrexham could support a team but rugby isn't popular up there. Theoretically the old Caledonian Reds franchise might get resurrected but a lot would have to change for that to be possible.
Of course if the Anglo-French boycott threats over the Heineken Cup go ahead then all bets are off.18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to Magners League?

It seems to be the more common term now...Goldman07 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should absolutely been done, it's the common convention for the other 'named' competitions in world rugby Daveirl 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from it.wiki

I translated the voice "Celtic League" for it.wiki but I need a little help (I don't know rugby very well): what does "regional side" mean? Does it mean that in that team can play only players coming from that particular region? Please, answer here or here. Thank you, Tia solzago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.108.194 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your fast answer --80.117.108.194 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First two seasons

Why there aren't voices about the first two season of Celtic League? --80.117.108.253 13:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has written them. GordyB 13:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link [1].GordyB 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question from it.wiki

Hi. I'm always Tia solzago and I've another question (sorry my ignorance): what was Celtic Cup? Was a competition played between Celtic League's teams with a knock-out format, it wasn't? It was like any other national cup, like Welsh Cup, or not? And was it played only two years, am I correct? If somebody answers here, I can create a voice about Celtic Cup (on it.wiki). Thank you --80.117.109.112 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Celticleague.png

Image:Celticleague.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union as the name of this article: Celtic or Magners League --Snowded (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Nations section

I think that the Other Nations section should be turned into a 'Future' section and be more stringently footnoted. Covering both the potential expansion and contraction of the league such as the potential disbandment of [Connacht]]. I do also think there should be something mentioned about the potential conflict with the RFU about expansion into England. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a serious offer on the table for Cornish Pirates or anybody else to join the Magners League. The Welsh would play in the English set-up if they could let alone London based clubs. It's only ever going to happen if the RFU abandon promotion and relegation.
Talking about the likely reaction of the RFU is entirely speculative. This is an encylopaedia not a magazine, the reaction of the RFU isn't very relevant.GordyB (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "The Welsh would play in the English set-up if they could" is of course not speculative? While there have been discussions on Anglo-Welsh tournaments in the past and we had the rebel years with Cardiff and Swansea I think that boat sailed a long time ago and its not really relevant. --Snowded (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on including it in the article so whilst it is POV, I don't have to be NPOV on talk pages. The boat has sailed because the RFU don't need Welsh clubs but the fact is that Welsh clubs get better attendences against teams from "across the bridge" than they do against Scots or Irish teams.GordyB (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, its much more fun beating the English than fellow celts but this belief that the RFU can manage on its own, or possibly with France has been around for a bit and its not good for the game. The issue on promotion assumes that in some ways welsh clubs would be afraid of it, the reality is that in Wales as in all other parts of the world bar England and France, national interests dominate. Its one of the big issues for Rugby to face over the next few years. Personally I would expand the Heineken Cup a bit to increase cross league interaction but that as you say is beyond the scope of this article! What do you think of my suggestion below that we get rid of the Cornish reference is there is no evidence for it and collapse the section? --Snowded (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it should be removed, doubtless it is true that some Cornish fans would like to see their team in the Celtic League but it is probably true that some Gwent Dragons fans would like to see their team in the English structures. I don't think the opinions of fans is notable unless it is a clear majority.GordyB (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be a majority, but it has to be significant. We now have a couple of citations which show some fans making the suggestions on chat lines. I think this is weak, but it is there. I don't see anything similar in Dragons sites. I am inclined to leave it now but we probably need more opinions. --Snowded (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source would have to be pretty good for it to be significant. A chatline doesn't constitute a proper source. A newspaper article reporting on chalines is however.GordyB (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense. A secondary source more authoritative than a primary source? --Snowded (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way wikipedia works.GordyB (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and that is your opinion and a dubious one. Lets see what other people say --Snowded (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, he's right actually. That's how Wikipedia works. – PeeJay 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love these definitive statements. Firstly to make such a statement breaks the fifth pillar. Secondly the requirement is for verifiability and citation. If a newspaper reports chat line comments then we can make statements about press reports. If we cite the chat line comments directly then we can make limited statements about the chat line. Either way this is a silly argument over a minor issue. The question is whether the Cornish chat comments should be on that page. One editor thinks so, I am inclined to support him. Its open discussion time. --Snowded (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be insane to trust primary sources like forums and chatrooms ahead of secondary sources like newspapers. I could very easily go along and post on a chatroom, then come back here and cite that post in order to establish my own opinion on Wikipedia. This is why we have to wait until the primary sources have been reported in secondary outlets before using them here. – PeeJay 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you posted to a chat room and then referenced it then it would be nonsense. If there are several comments in several historical chat rooms than it is evidence (weak evidence) of fans opinions. The fact that a cub reporter on a regional newspaper decides to write a story about the same does not dignify it with objectivity. --Snowded (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to cite comments made by individuals on a chatroom, it could be viewed as original research, which is also not allowed on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unsure as to why we are having this conversation as I am not particularly concerned if the statement stands or falls, but never mind. The statement "on club chat lines suggestions have been raised that the Pirates should join the Celtic League" is not original research it is verifiable primary source data. Of course it may not be relevant, it may not be strong enough evidence to include in an article. I checked original research and the above statement is consistent with it. --Snowded (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, particularly the section headed "overview". Interpreting primary data is specifically prohibited.GordyB (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did and interpretation would be wrong, factual statements referencing primary sources are not. You suggestion that it would be OK if reported in a newspaper article could well fall at "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Come on guys this is 101 research--Snowded (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that a particular opinion is common based on primary evidence is interpretation of that material and therefore original research. Using an article as a reference is reporting somebody else's research which is allowed. There is a list of what constitutes an acceptable source and a respectable newspaper is on and a forum posting is not.GordyB (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we could go round this loop for ever and your confidence in the accuracy of even respectable newspapers is touching and your use of "interpretation" a novel use of language given my earlier statements. However this is getting no where. I am not supporting advocating the inclusion of this particular item, although I am not inclined to delete it if other editors support it. You might want to add the fact tag back in if you feel strongly about this. --Snowded (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a major editor of these pages for four and a half years. When I say that what you suggested is original reasearch, it is based on more than merely my own interpretation.GordyB (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four and half years as an editor on these pages obviously makes your views definitive, I can only apologise for daring to use some logic. Irony aside, add back in the fact tag if you don't like the sentence, happy to agree what is there is weak. --Snowded (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 and a half years means that I have had this kind of conversation many, many times and it always ends in the same way. Your interpretations of what no original research and what constitutes a valid source is not one that is subscribed to by many people.GordyB (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get a feeling that you may not have been reading, but instead reacting but never mind. Lets see if the Cornish want to reinstate your deletion. --Snowded (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are welcome to do so if they can find a valid reference, even a local newspaper would do (as long as it was an article not a letter to the editor).GordyB (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a good section but neither is it necessarily "future". The conversations with Italy and South Africa took place. The Cornish link one can understand (Kernow) but it needs evidence so I have tagged it as a fact. If there is no evidence for that then maybe best to collapse the section into a sentence in history relating to SA and Italy? If there is evidence then I agree that possible RFU (they really should rename themselves ERU by the way) opposition would have to be noted but I don't think this is the place for speculation. Is there any evidence on Cornwall? --Snowded (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Scottish

Can someone come up with a better source? The current one doesn't mention them joining the Magners League at all. -MichiganCharms (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Flag

Why do Munster, Leinster and Connacht not have Irish flags? Its half understandable for the national team (and Ulster) to not use a National flag but surely these three provinces which are entirely contained in the country of Ireland can use the Irish flag? --194.106.137.50 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those teams represent the entire Irish island, not just the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, to apply the Irish tricolour to them is inappropriate. – PeeJay 16:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peejay for both them answers but I really don't understand how a team representing Munster is also somehow representing the entire island of Ireland?--194.106.137.50 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you misunderstand. Although the team itself is of the province of Munster, in the Heineken Cup and Magners League they are representing the island of Ireland, similar to how Manchester United F.C. represent England in the UEFA Champions League. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the team represents the Irish Rugby Football Union. – PeeJay 17:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, thanks. Though it is a pity there isn't a flag for the island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.70.191 (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I don't except this line of argument, it sounds like rubbish. Muk Den May24th 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.85.228 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please leave. If you cannot accept the rules, then you don't really have any place here. – PeeJay 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of Setanta in UK

Can someone clear up for me, will Setanta continue to cover matches in Scotland, Wales and NI. If not should there not be a new section giving some detail about the ongoing situation. RS 14/7/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.215.213 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 4 weeks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Magners League → Celtic League (rugby union) — Relisted. harej 08:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the moves and reasons listed at Super Rugby and English Premiership (rugby union). This may be tricky with the addition of the Italian teams ,however the controlling board is still called Celtic rugby Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support - The addition of the Italian teams is definitely a stumbling block, but since the league is run by Celtic Rugby and it used to be called the Celtic League anyway, I think this would be a good move. – PeeJay 09:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Celtic in common use by the Celtic league . Ospreys in early January and led from the front to claim their second Celtic title with games still in hand [2], Whilst every effort will be made to keep supporters updated and to notify them in the event of any change, Celtic Rugby [3] Gnevin (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that first link refers to Munster winning the Magners League ("Having been at or near the top of the Magners League table all season ") and only uses "celtic title" to describe the league - it is not used as a substitute name of the league. The second link only proves that the organiser of the league is Celtic Rugby - I do not argue with that fact. However, the league is commonly known as the Magners League, not the "Celtic League". Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Move 2011

Based on common name I think we should move this to Celtic League. Magners was established, I doubt RaboDirect PRO12 will work the same way. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly the leagues brand is to be changed permanently to PRO12 to address just this issue. I understand that if the sponsor was to change in the future it would change from 'Rabobank Pro12' to '[newsponsor] Pro 12'. In this case the article title could be moved to either 'Pro 12' or 'Celtic Rugby Pro12'. --Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops. So I missed this discussion, and moved it to Celtic League (rugby union). As I had always argued, while Magners was sponsor, Magners League was the appropriate, and common name. However, I'm wondering if Celtic League is appropriate. Yes, it is probably currently the common name, but perhaps simply having it at Pro12 would be a better idea? As per WP:MOSTM, we should use standard capitalisation and thus not render the PRO in all caps. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Celtic League (rugby union) as permanent name - I know the league is no longer exclusively Celtic, but it is run by Celtic Rugby Ltd and the BBC referred to it as the Celtic League in the above link. Sponsor names are, by definition, fleeting and we can't be changing the title of this article every time the sponsor changes. "Celtic League" seems to be a neutral, stable name. – PeeJay 12:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, but what about using the non-branded/non-sponsored Pro12? It seems the aim is to get away from the use of Celtic League and rebrand as the Pro12 in the same way as the French have the Top14 and down under it's Super Rugby. Should we wait for Pro12 to become the common name, or pre-empt this? As the new name has only been unveiled today, it may take some time for the likes of BBC etc to follow suit and change to using Pro12. Perhaps we should keep the page where it is for now, and see what happens with regards to use of the name in the media. I can imagin Pro12 will become the common name, but at present it is not. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No match reports or commentary talk about the Celtic League, all reference the Rabo Pro12. Per common name I think we probably have to change it --Snowded TALK 11:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The competition has always been and is still run by an organisation called Celtic Rugby, meaning that the "Celtic" label is the only thing that has remained constant throughout its history. – PeeJay 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then show some evidence of it being in common use. Its not the name of the league, but the name of the organisation which runs it. --Snowded TALK 05:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about common use right now or common use over the history of the competition? Because I would argue that it doesn't matter what the competition is called now, but what most people would recognise it by. – PeeJay 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common use was "Magners League" for some considerable time, and the name has now changed. Celtic League has no common use since sponsorship started --Snowded TALK 03:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even during the sponsorship by Magners, the BBC continued to refer to the league as the Celtic League on a great many of its pages. – PeeJay 13:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It did from time to time, but very infrequently. If you search all the BBC match reports this season then its Rabbo strong and clear as it was Magners before it. It made sense to wait a bit, but its time to move it unless you have something with a little more evidence behind it
Well let's look at another similar case. The Premier League article doesn't get moved every time there's a change in sponsor, so why should the Celtic League? – PeeJay 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Largely because it is called the Premier League with the sponsors name added, so Premier League is the common name. Again you need to respond to the fact that this is not the case with the Rabbo Pro12 where the overwhelming common name is that of the sponsor. --Snowded TALK 04:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any evidence that "Celtic league" confirms to common use I think its time to move it to Rabbo Pro12 --Snowded TALK 16:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Celtic

In this case is it "sell-tick" or "kell-tick"? Funnyhat (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with EVERY case except for Celtic F.C. and Boston Celtics, this is pronounced "kell-tick". – PeeJay 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What's the Celtic League called in Italy?

I'm going to suggest La Lega Celtica? (137.191.239.249 (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Requested move

Pro 12 → Celtic League – Per WP:RU we should use the competitions name not the sponsorship name Gnevin (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Going from the intro: "The PRO12 (known as the RaboDirect PRO12 for sponsorship reasons)" means that PRO12 is the competitions name. Furthermore the article states "The league dropped its "Celtic" name tag and converted to the PRO12 name to reflect the fact that not all teams are "Celtic" any more, and as a more marketable franchise." This seems to indicate that it is a name change and not a sponsorship name. If this move was from RaboDirect PRO12 -> PRO12 then I would be in favour. Mattlore (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, pure WP:OR. I've seen no evidence this is anything other than a other sponsorship name Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? 'League chief John Feehan said: "Our competition has experienced a huge growth over the last few years and it was time to move it to the next level. Our new brand, the Pro12, encapsulates the structure, growth and energy of our competition."' [6] Seems to me to indicate that Pro12 is the new competition name and not just a sponsorship name. Mattlore (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, re-added that link with your reference. Do you think the past seasons should be renamed as PRO 12 or should stay as Celtic League ? Gnevin (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the previous seasons as Celtic League in my opinion. For an example see Category:Super Rugby seasons. Mattlore (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Past seasons should definitely remain as "Celtic League". The Pro12 name only came into being this season, so there is no reason to apply it to past ones. – PeeJay 01:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Snowded TALK 07:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed just want to see what others thought Gnevin (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the media coverage section

Just cleaned up the media section as it was a bit outdated just put in Italian coverage and took out some outdated information.Tomh903 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Pro 12 → Pro12 - It may seem a bit pedantic, but shouldn't this article be called 'Pro12' rather than 'Pro 12', i.e., without the space in the middle? This is how the league itself stylises it. Even the opening line of this article uses 'Pro12', shouldn't the article at least be consistent? GallaghersGreek (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pro12. 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:

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archive link does not verify the information in the article. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pro12. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pro12. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pro12. 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:

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) 18:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pro12. 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:

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) 18:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pro14. 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:

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) 12:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current standings table error

There appears to be an error as of this post's date. Ulster are shown as having 7 wins, no draws, 3 losses, 5 try bonus points and 2 losing bonus points. This should total 7x4 + 5 + 2 = 35 points, but they are shown with 36 points. Am I misunderstanding something?

(I have duplicated this query on the Template:2021–22 United Rugby Championship table's talk page.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.66.81 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Rugby_Championship&oldid=1205237879"