Talk:2007 Rugby World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 2007 Rugby World Cup was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
November 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject France (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Rugby union (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Does anybody know why matches are being played at Millennium and Murrrayfield (were also offered to Lansdowne), but Twickers is not hosting any games at all? Does anyone know if the RFU wanted any or were offered any or anything...?Wkto guy 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Did it have anything to do with who voted for France or something? I really have no idea, but I remember Scotland and Wales were awarded a few matches for helping France obatin the tournament. I dont know who England voted for...??
England bidded themselves I think with some radical idea which only them and Australia voted for.--HamedogTalk|@ 07:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

France used the offer (bribe?) of home matches to Wales, Ireland and Scotland in return for votes for their overall scheme. As England were the competing scheme they were not involved in this deal. This is one aspect of the arrangements for this world cup that were not 'optimal'. As stated in the main page, Ireland then declined due to the rebuilding of the Landsdowne Road stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


I think 2007_Rugby_World_Cup#Qualified_teams should have spaces that nations will be filling, so it gives an indication of how many more teams or coming out of Africa and so on...


I removed the TOC right alignment because the text involving the teams got all mixed up with the TOC. It may just be my resolution or something, but its better to just have it the normal way to avoid this type of thing. Cheers. Cvene64 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Could someone please try and create a map of France with the cities marked out that are hosting? Wales and Scotland could also be represented in the image, on a seperate box to the side. Anyone want to have a go? Cvene64 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is what you wanted? SportsAddicted 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! Thats great. Good stuff. I might test out another version with Scotland bordered and placed in the same image as France. But yeah. Thats really good, was produced really quick as well! Cvene64 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem, feel free to move or resize the image in the article, I just put it there where I thought it looks ok. SportsAddicted 08:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick updating[edit]

That USA-Uruguay game finished only minutes ago, and the page already has them in their pool and all! Nice.

  • That's because someone (mea culpa) is obsessive.

St Denis/Paris[edit]

Someone changed the location of the Stade de France matches from St Denis to Paris, though it was reverted as vandalism. I actually think it would be better to have it as Paris though. As far as I know St Denis is a suburb of Paris yeah? A lot of people would not realise this, so I think having Paris works better imo. The venue was also used at the 1998 FIFA World Cup, and is written as Paris there. Cvene64 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Saint-Denis is indeed a suburb of Paris, not part of Paris itself, but it is true that only Frenchmen (like me) will know where it is Dingy 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Food for thought...would you refer to the 1994 (soccer) world cup final as Pasadena or Los Angeles? Same situation really.
The trick in France is to write Paris-Saint Denis, Dingy 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


I think we should try and display the teams section in a better way, as in its current state it looks really akward because of how many European teams there are, and the restrictions on each column. Maybe it could be ordered like this this one, and have a number of options like IRB ranking at the start of the World Cup, previous app, best result, how they qualified, pool, etc etc...Thoughts? Cvene64 15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be to change the horizontal and vertical information, though it takes some more space (vertically).
We could put the maps to the venues there. Mariano(t/c) 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Continent Qualified countries
  • -

That looks a lot better imo. It would work a lot better than what we currently have. Cvene64 14:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed that section a little. The old table was trouble because not all the sections were of equal length, and too much information was being put in there. I changed it to pools so it is equal, and added a note to the automatic entrys. There was no need to say "Africa 1" etc for qualified nations as the paragraph that preceeds that section explains all of that. Goldman07

Except for the part where you imply that Oceania is a continent. Oceania is a geographic region and nothing more. It is usefull in maping out sporting regions but that doesn't make it a continent. Far Queue 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rugby 07[edit]

The Rugby 07 template does not seem to show up (at all) unless I expand the other ones...does anyone else have this problem? Cvene64 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

United States Broadcast?[edit]

Will any part of the Rugby World Cup be broadcasted in the United States, and if so, by what broadcaster (ESPN, Fox Soccer Channel?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I would think so hey. The problem with the Broadcasting section in this article is that it was only started a few days ago, with the UK info, and then someone added AUS.NZ I imagine that the complete list would be in excess of 100 countries...Narrasawa 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Setanta Sports will broadcast the RWC. You'll need Directv to get it. It's well worth it if you're a Rugby fan in the US.Rowlan 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You can watch online at I believe it's on a delay, but you can get it pretty much anywhere. Postmistress 22:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved list here[edit]

I have moved the section to here. Until the section is complete, it is totally misleading, and is useles until then. Narrasawa 08:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • United Kingdom - As usual, ITV have the rights for all live matches and highlights packages. The Rugby World Cup is a listed event and is thus restricted by law to free-to-air television, although many 'minor' matches are likely to be shown on digital-only channels ITV2 and ITV4.
  • New Zealand - All matches will be on the free to air network TV3. This is the first time TV3 has secured the New Zealand broadcasting rights, with TVNZ having held the rights since 1987.
I think we should add the section back in, otherwise it will never be complete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldman07 (talkcontribs) 03:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, yes, let's put it back, blast it! It's difficult enough to find out where to see the games, at least in the US, and the world cup web site is no help. BTW, thanks for the Setanta Sports channel tip! So far, all i'd heard of was Pay-per-view. Oh wait, Setanta doesn't play all of them live, but at least a day late! Ouch. OK here we go, and this too]. --Jerome Potts 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No, let's not. The section is not encyclopaedic in the slightest, and I don't think your inability to find out where to watch matches is reason enough to put it back in the article. - PeeJay 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"not encyclopaedic in the slightest", huh? Now here's a debate which can last until way after the world cup is over. OK, then, may i request of thee a link to a web page which provides the needed/useful information? --Jerome Potts 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would I know where to find that sort of information? Regardless, Wikipedia is not an electronic program directory. - PeeJay 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Where it says "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable." --Jerome Potts 01:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening game 1999, 03 and 07[edit]

Wales  23–18  Argentina
Tries: Colin Charvis, Mark Taylor
Con: Neil Jenkins (2)
Pen: Neil Jenkins (3)
Pen:Gonzalo Quesada (6)
Millennium Stadium
Referee: Paddy O'Brian New Zealand

Anyone know why it has been the Pumas 3 times in a row? Is it something to do with Americas seeding or something..? Narrasawa 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just the draw. In 2007, the game would have been France-Namibia. Stasm 12:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly the IRB formula is 'First Game = Host Nation + First team in Alphabetical order'. So when Argentina gets to host the cup they'll have to play Australia first up (unless Albania or Afghanistan qualify). Lisiate 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of nations[edit]

I think Pools and that should be in alphabetical order, not in order of who is assumed to be on top or something like that. Goldman07 03:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. - Shudda talk 03:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ireland Flag[edit]

is it possible to use the four provinces flag for Ireland rather than the clover?

Four Provinces Flag.svg Rowlan 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe some people thought the clover was best at the project talk page. I prefer it also, as something like that is usually used in broadcasts and other stuff, so its probably more recognisable than the provinces flag for use on this page. Goldman07 12:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The clover is also the internatinonally recognised symbol for Irish Rugby. They may even have it copyrighted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Irish refs have the rugby flag or the national flag? It seams to me that they should have the national flag because they are (I assume) citizens of Ireland. Then again, I don't know why the national flag isn't used in all cases. Are some of the players or refs North Irish? That is the only reason I could think of. Rugbyhelp 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the players may be from Northern Ireland, i.e. most of the Ulster players, but I'm not sure about refs. However, since neither the Republic of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has an IRB-recognised association, I believe the rugby flag should be used ahead of the flag of the Republic. PeeJay 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The rugby team and the refs all fall under the IRFU, so I would have thought that the IRFU flag should be used. Image:Ireland_rugby.png Buceph Haelez 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic frequently dicussed (on lots of rugby talk pages). The best thing is to bring it up at WP:RU, and then see if a consensus can be reached. I for one don't mind either way. - Shudde talk 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was checking out he IRB rankings [1] and I noticed that the flag they use for Ireland is quite different to anything that we are using (it's hard to see cos it's very small but it's mostly green with symbols in the corners). Considering that it is the IRB, isnt it likely that they are using the most appropriate flag? If this weren't so, Im sure the Irish Union would have sent on their complaints! GringoInChile 06:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a variation of the "four provinces" flag shown above. It has the crests of each of the four provinces of Ireland (Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connacht), along with the clover in the centre. Nevertheless, discussions about the flag used for the Irish team should be taken up at WP:RUGBY. - PeeJay 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It also includes the non-free logo of the IRFU, so it can't be used in templates or outside of the IRFU and team articles. - Bob 09:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To go back to what Rugbyhelp said about the refs. I do not think they should have the Ireland but Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland depending on where they come from. Chandlertalk 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just like British refs have English, Scottish or Welsh flags, not the Union Jack. Conscious 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The refs flags are determined by the Union they are registered to, not where they come from. - PeeJay 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


I don't think we should have this incomplete section on broadcasting, as it is pretty misleading (see above) until it is comprehensive. It would be better off on List of 2007 Rugby World Cup broadcasters where it can be referenced and expanded. I'm going to take it out again until we officially discuss it! Goldman07 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this site? it has the time and channel for UK terrestrial (and freeview) viewing? This is one of my first edits, sorry if I'm not following protocol! Topcat31 - 16.56 30th Aug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topcat31 (talkcontribs) 15:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Size of flags in nations/refs[edit]

We should think about this a little more. Are you sure the way I put if effected the load time at all? Although your solution works here, it puts a lot of other pages out of sync. For example, if we do it your way, we need to change the px size on the other 80 or so templates, as at present, the only templates with updated px sizes are the 20 2007 RWC teams, so it will look really weird everywhere else...Goldman07 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to update them as and when we find ones that need updating. I'll go through the previous World Cups and see which ones need doing. PeeJay 11:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK sounds good. I'll start doing the others as well. We should probably also use this opportunity to straigthen out some of the templates so that they are all in the proper abbreviation. Goldman07 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been through all the World Cups today, just to sort out the refs and the country flag templates. I think I got all of them, but not sure. Will have to do the qualifying rounds next. PeeJay 22:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


anyone know if the TMO's are being chosen from the pool of touch judges? if so, we should reflcet this in the heading Goldfinger820 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


In the map of nations participating in qualifying competition the island of Tierra del Fuego in South America has to be green, because it's part of Argentina and Chile so don't know why it's still in grey...maybe you thoght were the falklands? haha, well, no. please if someone do the favour...

future sport template removal....[edit]

hi folks - i removed the 'this article is about a future sporting event or team, and may contain speculation and info. that changes etc. etc.' template because;

  • The article is very clear as to what it's about - it's not about a team, and all info. is well sourced - with that in mind, the template provides confusing clutter to the reader.
  • The article is pretty well written, and very clear about the schedule - there's no speculation that i could find.

and that's why i removed it! - thoughts? - Purples 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination failed on grounds of stability[edit]

Without implying anything about the quality of the current version of the article, it is clearly not going to be stable in a period when the competition itself is about to start. I am therefore failing the nomination on the ground that the article does not meet the stability requirement.--Peter cohen 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, before nominating again, be sure to look over the GA criteria to help you determine what else needs to be done for the article. The logo in the infobox needs a fair use rationale to justify its inclusion within the article. Good job on the article so far, and if you make sure that all information is updated and properly sourced, the article shouldn't have too much trouble reaching GA in the future. --Nehrams2020 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What does that mean, "it is not going to be stable when the comp is about to start"? It can't be a good article because it will be updated with results? I have no axe to grind becuase I haven't contributed to the article. But I will be using it as my first port of call for scores and progress, in preference to any of the professional sports sites such as CNN/SI, BBC, Grauniad Unlimited, Rugby Heaven, etc becuase I know from past experience of sports tournaments that the wikipedia article will provide the fastest, clearest and most accessible way get the information: while the so-called professional sites will make you visit multiple pages or click on multiple buttons and boxes and wait while ad-heavy pages slowly download, the fast-opening Wikipedia single web page while beat them all. Also, Wikipedians will update it faster than the professional news sites. I'm sure the amateurs will win this competition again. Rexparry sydney 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It means that, in the period immediately before and during the competition, the content of the article is likely to change dramatically as results come in. Articles regarding current sporting events are also prone to heavy vandalism, and so would most likely fail a Good Article nomination on those grounds. I'm sure us Wikipedians will get the info up pretty damn sharpish, but that info is not always 100% reliable straight away, as many people view it as a race to see who can get the info up the quickest (myself included, at times) at the expense of 100% correct info. - PeeJay 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Peejay, for taking this in good grace. Vandalism is actually not a reason to fail an article. There were two factors driving my decision to close the nomination quickly. First, I view the GA label as a message to our readership that this is a resonably complete well-structured article with a lead section that summarises the article. By their very nature, sports articles are contributed by an extremely partisan group. There may be a race to claim various conclusions based on the results of, say, Scotland-Italy or Ireland-Argentina which may not reflect the balance of the article as a whole. Although, the scores are likely to be accurate, it may require a few weeks for the correct perspective to be attained. Once that time has passed, assessments will have been possible saying how NZ were always regarded as the strongest team and the competition result does justice to them or how home support saw France through just as it did with the Association Football World Cup or how Fiji's success at Sevens level has now fed through to the larger version of the game or whatever. But, as we and the commentators who will be our sources don't yet know how these teams will have done, such perspectives are currently missing. Second, we always have an assessment backlog. While all articles especially those concerned with living persons and their actions are liable to some change, it won't have neen predictable in advance, that the article on Pavarotti will have received a flurry of attention this week. With a sports event it is highly predictable that there will be a flurry of activity in a specific time frame. With a backlog of articles for assessment, it is unfair on both those involved with articles that are more likely to be stable and on the reviewers who have other draws on their attention that an article that is liable to change hugely is put up as a candidate. I wanted to remove the article from the list of the candidates quickly to avoid time being spent thinking about it. --Peter cohen 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Once the Argentina versus France match is finished[edit]

Once the article is updated when the game is over would the first person that can please post something at Template talk:In the news and Portal:Current events. This news should be on the main page. The most common argument for rarely ever putting rugby union related news on the "in the news" template has been that it's not the sports major international tournament/competition. Well this is it, so it should be there! - Shudde talk 09:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take that responsibility. - PeeJay 14:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Which games are going to be put on the main page? The opening game and the final? Or maybe the opening game, the final and the two semi-finals? I think it should be decided now, so that paople will know when new things are going to be up on the main page.Cstubbies 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I was intending to submit an account of only the opening game tonight. Something along the lines of "Hosts France beat Argentina X-Y in the opening match of the 2007 Rugby World Cup on 7 September 2007" if France win, or "Argentina beat hosts France X-Y in the opening match of the 2007 Rugby World Cup on 7 September 2007" if Argentina win. - PeeJay 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a request. Hopefully some nice admin adds it onto the main page. - Shudde talk 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

World map[edit]

How much nations did participate? -- 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

According to List of nations in qualification for the 2007 Rugby World Cup, 86 nations took part in the qualifying competitions. Along with the eight nations that qualified automatically, that makes 94 nations. - PeeJay 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2011 qualificiation[edit]

Call me devil's advocate here but what happens if New Zealand don't get to the semis? Saying they won't reach the quarters is unthinkable but a one-off quarter final could throw up a surprise. Anyway, if this happens does one of the semi finalists then lose their seeding, or would NZ host the tournament unseeded? 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think because NZ will be the host nation they will be seeded anyway but in the unlikely event that the All Blacks team collectively succumbs to the bubonic plague before half time in the knock out stages in 2007 it is likely that the organisers will bow to reality and seed the 2011 side. Albatross2147 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I know they want the All Blacks to be in a pool that has games throughout New Zealand in 2011, rather then based on one city. So they've probably already started making plans about the make-up of that pool. - Shudde talk 23:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
All teams qualified for the knockout stage, plus (tbd october 18th) the team ranked third in each group. This WC is also planned to be played with 16 teams, instead of 20... gasp —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pool articles[edit]

Can I suggest that we create individual articles for each of the Pools? That would allow us to follow the example of 2006 Tri Nations Series and show the line-ups for each team. - PeeJay 19:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Where are the attendance results ? We can read in the article :

  • FRA-ARG 79,507 spectators in Saint-Denis (capacity: 80,000) source:
  • NZL-ITA unknown spectators in Marseille (capacity: 60,013)
  • AUS-JPN 59,500 spectators in Lyon (capacity: 43,051 !!)
  • ENG-USA 35,000 spectators in Lens (capacity: 35,000)

It looks like the only sourced attendance result comes from ; has nothing at all, so where does take their sources? 10:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, can people make sure the stadium capacities are not changed again? The current capacities are taken from, and so can be taken as the actual capacities. - PeeJay 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Is this section really encyclopaedic? Many articles, including Premier League 2007-08 and UEFA Champions League 2007-08 have had similar sections removed on the grounds of it not being encyclopaedic enough. So should we remove this section from this article? - PeeJay 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it. It would be hard to find the complete list of broadcasters. Conscious 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, I think that information about the size of TV audience would be worth inclusion. Conscious 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Size of the TV audience would be fine, but a list of broadcasters really is a no-no, in my opinion. - PeeJay 11:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


can someone edit template: rugbybox so we can add a line for cards given during a game? Goldfinger820 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say, I oppose this change. The cards are listed next to the player's name in the lineup in the individual group articles, so there's no need to include them in the match summary. - PeeJay 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
it is a match summary so I thought it would be appropriate here (tries, conversions and penalties are listed - why not cards?) but if you insist................ Goldfinger820 10:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But if you look at any match summary by the BBC, or other media sites, they don't list the cards given there. - PeeJay 10:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Also cards doesn't directly effect the score (unlike tries, penalties and conversions). People like to know how the score is broken down, and the cards don't influence this. - Shudde talk 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think having 14 players instead of 15 could influence your or the oppositions score... i'm for it.Boomshanka 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Me, too. --necronudist 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If cards are included in the match summaries on the main article, we should be careful not to include them in the match summaries on the individual pool articles, as it would end up being duplicate information. - PeeJay 11:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're forced to choose. They obviously must be included in the pool articles and can be as well included in the summaries, maybe with only a general indication like "# Temporarily suspended". --necronudist 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, my point is that information on cards is already included next to the player's name in the team lineup in the pool articles, so there's no need to include it in the match summary on that page. - PeeJay 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's no more importance then number of lineouts awarded, scrums won, penalties awarded etc. I think it's important to include it in the pool articles because it's good to know who was on the field when, but it's not necessary for the game summaries. Keep as is I say. - Shudde talk 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal Rugby union[edit]

Hi, I have added the most recent scores to the news section of Portal:Rugby Union. If someone could update that as scores are added to the article that would be great. Thanks. - Shudde talk 00:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lineup images[edit]

I've been the only one to create these lineup images so far. I'm definitely willing to create some more, but it's going to be a huge amount of work for me to create all 48! If someone could please help this would be great, otherwise it may be some time before they are all done. For anyone who wants to help i've been using Inkscape and creating the files in svg format. The lineups that have currently been completed can be found at Category:2007 Rugby World Cup on WikiCommons, and the blank svg lineup image here. I would really appreciate some help with this, thanks. - Shudde talk 00:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do the lineups for the Wales matches, but I need to know what the name of the font used in the images is so that we have some consistency. - PeeJay 07:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just download the blank lineup and use the same font as that. Once each team has had one lineup done then those older lineups can be used to create the newer ones. This will save time and also create consistency. - Shudde talk 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I just tried creating the Canada kit in Inkscape, but I couldn't figure out how to work it. I managed to put the players names in tho! - PeeJay 08:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You may need to try and select all, and the ungroup the image. It does take a while to figure out how to use inkscape, but once you have it's not too hard to use. - Shudde talk 00:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Made four. Conscious 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, dude. Can I just point out, though, that Montgomery, Fourie and Habana seem to be on a lower layer than the pitch markings in the South Africa vs Samoa image? Also, I'm about to post up the teams for Argentina vs Georgia, if you fancy doing the image for that one. - PeeJay 15:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not before I see their shirts :) Conscious 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you're doing a great work! Pools pages are wonderful, lineups are really stylish and clear...It's great, really. I like it, indeed. Congratulations. --necronudist 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe we can thank the guys over at WP:FOOTY for that one :D - PeeJay 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Lineups had been done for the 2006 Tri Nations Series last year by Hamedog. So this isn't the first time lineups have been done for rugby articles. Thanks for the help though guys. - Shudde talk 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know! However, the field is more detailed and it's generally more stylish! If I wasn't (very very) dumb with graphics I'd do the same for the FIFA World Cups. hope I used proper tenses, my English sucks Maybe I'll search some tutorial! --necronudist 17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded Image:2007 RWC blank lineup.svg which contains (hidden) jerseys of all participating nations, for the ease of future lineups creation. Conscious 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just noticed that Image:Rugby Union blank line ups.svg contradicts Rugby union positions#Overview (the positions of flankers are switched). So, which is right? Conscious 05:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't think it matters does it? Blindside and openside and not a left and right thing (although some countries do play their flankers like that) so it's prob not a problem. - Shudde talk 05:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Conscious, I just updated all of the kits in Image:2007 RWC blank lineup.svg to include as many away kits as possible too. Do you see any point in updating all the diagrams to reflect the changes I made to the kits? - PeeJay 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have added more detail to some kits, so yes, I see the point in updating if someone bothers to do it. Conscious 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like that someone was me. However, I may have missed one or two, but I guess that's excusable due to the fact that there were forty group stage matches to go through. I've also done the quarter final diagrams, btw. - PeeJay 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


It's since been adjusted anyway, but if it was going to be "it is hosted by France" (I still think it should be "it is being hosted by France", just because afterwards we will say "it was hosted by France" doesn't mean "it is hosted by France" is applicable during the event), then by the same reasoning the last line of the first paragraph should say "Forty-two matches are played" rather than "Forty-two matches are being played". Just a thought. - JCIACHNE 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of U.S. date format[edit]

Is this article being written for the convenience of Americans? It looks that way, as U.S. date formats are used. How about treating this as a Commonwealth English article, and putting the people who are actually interested first, instead of kow-towing to the Yanks? Postlebury 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The dates should be showing up as per your own personal date settings, at least for the dates in the match summaries. Try changing your date settings in your preferences. - PeeJay 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
On a similar topic, is there a way to have a clock that displays France's time as well as your own local time on this page? (I know UTC+2 but it would be nice to have, so you don't need a calculator) Billy Nair 07:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can, as far as I know. Anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to convert. - PeeJay 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See the following guidelines about dates: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates. It mentions the fact that the YYYY-MM-DD format (ISO format) is acceptable and useful in cases such as tables where space and clutter are important factors. --Deon Steyn 07:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Could anyone perhaps make the infobox a bit wider? Percy Montgomery's name isn't on the same line as the South Africa flag next to it, and it looks a bit odd. - PeeJay 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Player names[edit]

I would like to propose that all players' names are piped to display their names as given on I know I've been doing this already, but recently User:Dale Arnett and User:Montchav changed the name of the Argentinian winger Federico Martin Aramburu (as given on to Federico Martín Aramburú (as given on the UAR) website). Now, in the player's article, I would agree with that, but as we're doing a Rugby World Cup article, I believe we should be displaying the name that was registered with the IRB for the tournament. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this before starting an edit war. - PeeJay 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should use the official player's name, and not the IRB "transcription". If IRB doesn't care about accents, we do. After all, it's making a (little) mistake. --necronudist 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree about accents. What about in cases where a player's full name is given, such as "Omar Hasan Jalil" in place of just "Omar Hasan"? - PeeJay 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the IRB has included accents for most of the players whose names have them. However, they seem to have missed out the accents on Aramburú's name, and I refuse to believe that his was an accident. - PeeJay 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Omar Hasan is commonly known without his mother's (I suppose) surname. However we should clear if Martin Aramburu has accents or not. --necronudist 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should just go with whatever name we think is right. If there are differences between what two sources say just use common sense. I don't think there is any need to introduce a rule saying "only this source is correct". - Shudde talk 23:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

France national rugby union team on main page[edit]

France national rugby union team will be Todays Featured Article on September 16. This is great because there was a refusal to put anything about the RWC in the current events template (despite other sporting events having had it done in the past). Anyway the point is be on the look out for vandalism, as many RWC related pages are going to get an increase in traffic. - Shudde talk 23:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic news! I couldn't believe they refused to put anything about the opening of the RWC in the Current Events or In the News templates, so this almost makes up for it. I just hope they agree to put something about the World Cup final on "In the News" when the time comes. - PeeJay 23:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there will be a note when the championship is determined.-- 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Schedule needed?[edit]

I was curious to know whether a schedule by date should be set up for the Rugby World Cup? A bit like what was done for the Soccer World Cup? Thanks Lummie 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think such article is needed. It's not going to contain any material not found in the main article. And for people who don't want to miss a match, [2] should suffice. Conscious 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't create one and see what people think. It's not like Wikipedia is short on storage space. - PeeJay 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apps, Table header key?[edit]

Just wondering in the 'top ten point scorers' and 'top ten try scorers' tables, what does 'Apps' stand for? Im guessing by the numbers that it is the amount of games each player has played. With the rest, Pos, Con, Pen etc would it be a good idea to have a key underneath the tables to indicate what each of these stand for? Cstubbies 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Appearances". Conscious 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Added the keys, thanks for your suggestion. Conscious 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Advancing teams[edit]

Can the teams which are sure to advance/will advance by highlighted or at least have a green bar? --Howard the Duck 08:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but there are no such teams yet. Conscious 08:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How about the system done at UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying to denote that the top 2 teams will advance (may not appear on IE)? For noobs who doesn't know how many teams will advance to the next phase w/o reading the format section. --Howard the Duck 09:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Are teams getting the red bar treatment when they are eliminated from the competition or when they're eliminated from achieving 3rd in the group? If its when they're eliminated from the competition, Canada can be given the red bar as they can earn 10 points, but between Fiji, Australia and Wales two of them are guaranteed to earn at least 1 point mathmatically.Theasfl 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have two green bars, and then an orange bar for third. Simple. Third means they automatically qualify for 2011 world cup. No need for red bars or anything. - Shudde talk 23:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest to use yellow, orange is too dark. --Howard the Duck 02:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's remove the red bars when the pool stage is over, but keep them for now to show which teams have lost chances to qualify. Canada still have a chance to be second - if they beat Japan and Australia, and Fiji do the same (assuming 5 poitns for winners, no points for losers), it'll be Fiji 20, Australia 10, Wales 10, Canada 10, Japan 1. Conscious 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
We can use a different colour (see history, removed by PJ) for teams which cannot reach second, but have prospects of being third. Conscious 08:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest not to do that... after all, all teams aspire to reach the top 2 spots at their respective pools. I suggest to highlight the third placers and remove highlights for the bottom 2 after everything is sorted out. --Howard the Duck 08:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know what the music is that is played in the stadium as the teams run out? I only noticed it tonight during France-Ireland, but it was fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's quite likely that it's the official song of the Rugby World Cup, a specially commissioned song called "World in Union". - PeeJay 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on music by Gustav Holst - you can find it here --Bob 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I should have said it's not World In Union. It was something far more dramatic - a modern fanfare. Listen out for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Where can I watch on TV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I am almost certain that the song which plays when the teams run out is from a Jean Michel Jarre album "The Symphonic Jean Michel Jarre", disc 1, track 11 "Industrial Revolution - Part 2". It's quite bizzare that I know this, as I'm not really a fan, it just happened to be the only album by him that I have heard :-) This music is different from the (pretty yucky) variation of the Holst tune played to introduce the TV programmes themselves. Lethe 16:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

New question (the "Ole!" audience fanfare)[edit]

Does anyone know the short 'trumpet fanfare' music played in the stadium afer each try? It sounds Spanish/Mexican and is followed by the response "Ole!" from the crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pool winners decided 22-23 Sept[edit]

The professional sports media such as BBC Sports and Rugby Heaven seem slow to pick on the fact that the Pool A, B and C winners were decided at the weekend as a consequence of the head-to-head results rule in determining rank for teams on the same number of points. For instance, at present their websites don't yet show RSA, NZ and Aus listed in the Quarter Final fixtures. Another example of Wikipedia's superiority. Rexparry sydney 01:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just on another note, I have updated Romania being eliminated because the remaining matches would eliminate them even in the case they were able to take maximum points from their remaining games. Romania's highest points total could be 11. With Scotland and Italy still to play, either team that won would knock Romania out. A draw between the two teams would still eliminate Romania as Scotland would take 2 points and go through on 12 points. Lummie 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


If Ireland, France, and Argentina all finish level at 14 points, what would be the deciding tie-breaker. Each would have defeated and been defeated by one of the others, so head-to-head wouldn't work. Would the next tie-breaker be points for minus against in the entire pool, or would they first look at the for/against between the three teams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmjohnson (talkcontribs) 05:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"ii. The Team which has the best difference between points scored for and points scored against in all its pool Matches shall be the higher ranked". Conscious 06:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know the best way to deal with the recent juvenile vandalism on this page? DerbyCountyinNZ 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I watched it closely, reverted and warned the anon. The final warning made it. Conscious 06:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If it keeps happening semi-protecting the page may be the best option. An admin can do this. - Shudde talk 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Guys, the information posted on this page does not match the one here: Look at the scheme at the bottom of the RWC page, which shows the winner of NZL-FRA playing against the winner of ARG-SCO, instead of AUS-ENG. I believe Wikipedia is right, and RWC is wrong, but could someone please double check this? --AG 20:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on how the quarter-finals are numbered. If they are numbered in the order that they are played, then Wikipedia is right. However, if they were numbered 1,3,2,4, as they seem to be on, then they would be right. - PeeJay 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is right, to be World champions, France would have to beat NZL, AUS and the Bocks (or ARG). Dingy 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
How odd. RWC must be wrong...every other website has NZL/FRA playing AUS/ENG: egRugby Heaven, Planet Rugby, TV3 Schedule. Gwinva 06:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, IRB site must be wrong, because in any sport with a pool followed by QFs and SFs, you would only repeat a pool fixture (e.g. SA-ENG) in the final, in other words the 1st and 2nd place teams in any pool go to opposite halves of the draw, e.g. NZ, AUS, ENG, FRA in one half and SA, ARG, SCO, FIJ in the other. (ps. it's Boks, not Bocks ;-) Deon Steyn 07:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the 2002 Fifa World Cup had all potential rematches occurring in the semifinal. And of course when they had the old 24-team world cup, there was always the possibility for a pre-final rematch as well. Alanmjohnson 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
RWC has removed the scheme from their webpage. Wikipedia was right then. :-) --AG 2:00 PM, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing controversy[edit]

Too much of this seems like POV.DerbyCountyinNZ 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily such statements and sections could easily be made off as POV or even OR, but in this case it is a widely reported controversy with regards to several different teams and players. The section is after all titled "controversy", so while it might be POV on the part of these many commentators, the fact that there have been many such articles surely merits inclusion in the article? In all the cases it wasn't just supporters of the country penalised that complains and I went to great lengths to find comments from different/neutral countries and from articles describing the controversy in general. These articles and columns carried titles such as "Citing spoiling the exciting?", "Conspiracy theories abound as crunch fixtures approach", "Why Rugby World Cup officials are getting it all wrong". --Deon Steyn 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I realise that it is difficult to use direct quotes from the cited articles and therefore the distinction between what reporters have written and what is a user opinion is blurred. To suggest that punching is a "serious" offence after mentioning a spear tackle earlier in the sentence without calling it serious implies that punching was more serious. I suggest most people would disagree. And without listing ALL the offences which could/should have been cited and those which were dismissed (I think particularly of the biting incident) then it lacks some balance. My opinion obviously...DerbyCountyinNZ 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Punching is definitely more serious than a spear tackle and I did intend to imply exactly that! A spear tackle at least occurs by someone executing a tackle and it has only been outlawed (or policed seriously) in recent years and often times some ambiguity exists as to when a normal tackle becomes a spear tackle. Punching on the other hand has one express and unambiguous purpose and that is to injure the opponent, it has always been illegal and leaves absolutely no room for interpretation whatsoever. Punching almost always results in a yellow card.
As for the biting incident... on the one hand it could be added, because it was controversial for the fact that it was the only instance of a player being cited without any evidence of an offence and eventually being found "not guilty". On the other hand it could just be overcautious officials. In the end the player/team wasn't unfairly disadvantaged as was the case in the other incidents mentioned.
We can add quotes into that section to highlight the controversy... there is a neat way, lemme' cook something up and tell me what you think.
--Deon Steyn 08:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

placekicking to decide k/o games[edit]

do we have something similar to what the football people have to show a penaly shootout for the possibility of deciding k/o games with a place kicking competition? see England v Portugal. would be nice to show it pictorially if it eventuates Goldfinger820 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about these? {{rupengoal}} for a successful kick, {{rupenmiss}} for an unsuccessful one. - PeeJay 08:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that something reminding the H would be better... --necronudist 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we can find someone who can create an image of rugby posts in the same style, that would be very useful. - PeeJay 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
looks good to me Goldfinger820 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Lets just hope that these matches don't come down to a goal kicking competition! Really would be a shame if that was necessary to separate two teams. :-) Shudde talk 02:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh games[edit]

Can someone translate the following on the article page into English. I cannot work out what it is trying to say. "but it was confirmed in April 2006 that Scotland would be hosting the games after the same as those used for the 1998 FIFA World Cup." -- SGBailey 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it to make it slightly more readable. However, it did read like a big chunk of text had been deleted, and I'd like to find out what that chunk was so we can put it back in. - PeeJay 09:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe this edit, [3] includes the original version. --Scottmsg 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

jersery controversy[edit]

anyone think it's worth mentioning the jersery controversy with the NZL/FRA/SCO strips? Goldfinger820 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What controversy? Tbh, if it hasn't had much media coverage, it isn't really worth mentioning. - PeeJay 22:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - in new zealand it's had easily as much media debate as the citings controversy on the main page - if not more


the IRB even asked the all blacks to change their strip in the halftime break during the scotland game - they couldn't provide an alternative seems reasonably controversial to me..................

Goldfinger820 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that controversy. Yes, I suppose that would be worth a mention if you can find a place for it. - PeeJay 23:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


I think there is a lot of news and talk about controversies during the world cup. The three I'm thinking of being the refereeing (see here), the citing process (which is currently mentioned in the article), and the jersey's (see above). I think we should consider having a section on this, with the three relevant subsections. Probably shouldn't be worried about until the tournament is over, but the risk is that there will be lots of content forking into other articles if it's not included in this one. - Shudde talk 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It will be worth mentioning the ball problem as well at some point... 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


I suggest that we remove the match summaries from the pool stage and replace them with a better quality results grid than the ones currently attached to the pool tables. We could even do the same for the knockout matches if necessary. I just think this article would be better off as an overview of the tournament, with the details going in the separate pool and knockout stage articles, as they are already. - PeeJay 22:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


As I write this, at 1715 BST, about 165 minutes before the final kicks off, the last 30 edits to this article have comprised vandalism and reversions, with no constructive edits since PeeJay2K3 updated after the Bronze Final. Can I suggest that we semi-protect this article to prevent the anons from continuing to vandalise? -- Arwel (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Semi-protection expires in 48 hours. Andrwsc 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

are the times given local times?[edit]

Yes, French (and Central European) time, CEST. Conscious 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Although I wanted Argentina to beat SAfrica, I think Brian Habana's grubber kick into try might be the most picturesque try of the whole series if not history (Superman over the opponent). I doubt we can get a picture of it for the article, but if we could that would be one to put in the article somewhere. In the meantime, does anyone know where I can find a decent shot of it, I want to use it for my desktop background (edited of course to have me with my team's jersey on) Billy Nair 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a photo about 3 or 4 frames after the one I am looking for, the one I want is while he is still in the air and over the defender. Still brilliant all these months after. Photo:Try against ARG - Thanks - Billy Nair (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pool tables[edit]

Is it possible to change the pool tables so they appear finishing order (from first to 5th) rather than in alphabetical order. Would make it slightly easier to follow I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonwoodnz (talkcontribs)

General convention is to list the teams in the results table in alphabetical order. Sorry if that confuses you. – PeeJay 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Match reports[edit]

It seems that the pages linking to the match reports are no longer valid, the rugbyworldcup domain gearing up for 2011 - any ideas for suitable replacements? (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well pointed out. I'll set about changing those now. – PeeJay 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Paris or St Denis[edit]

To stop this pingpong, Saint Denis is not a suburb of Paris but a commune in the suburbs of Paris. This is not just the position of myself and Peejay, the rugby world cup themselves cite Saint Denis as town and the location of the final, see here and most of the main stream journals cited the final as being Saint Denis. Parc des Princes is Paris, and Stade de France is Saint Denis.

Though we cannot self reference, from the Stade de France article "The Stade de France (French pronunciation: [stad də fʁɑ̃s]) is the national stadium of France, situated in the Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis." and from the Saint Denis article "Saint-Denis (French pronunciation: [sɛ̃ dəni]) is a commune in the northern suburbs of Paris, France. It is located 9.4 km (5.8 mi) from the centre of Paris. Saint-Denis is a sous-préfecture of the Seine-Saint-Denis département, being the seat of the Arrondissement of Saint-Denis." it is an entity in it's own right and not part of Paris.

If we look at the Paris article "The 80,000-seat Stade de France, built for the 1998 FIFA World Cup, is located in Saint-Denis."

To finish Paris is Departement 75, Saint Denis though an arrondisement of Paris is Departement 93 Seine-Saint-Denis, just because something is known a suburb of does not necessarily mean that it is a part of. Cheers Khukri 10:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rugby World Cup 2007 Boutique Officielle.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Rugby World Cup 2007 Boutique Officielle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on 2007 Rugby World Cup. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2007 Rugby World Cup. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)