Talk:2009 Six Nations Championship

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

2009 page[edit]

I think if there is 2002-2008 Six Nations pages,then there should be a 2009 one as well.Someone said Argentina might join but they are way too far away from Europe.Somebody WILL create this article sometime so why not now?--86.41.85.203 (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixtures to be released April, but aside from that there is likely to be little development of the article until January 2009.Nouse4aname (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge: I say leave it thereit will be needed soon and if someone wanted to you could easily add some stub-like information: who is playing whom where, are Ireland still at Croke Park? etc. And the fixtures are released soon anyway. PeemJim86 (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the proposed merge tag, as fixtures have now been released. Last year's article was at this state for several months.Nouse4aname (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't know what sport this was for until I saw the words "Rugby Union", maybe include what SPORT they are playing in the first paragraph? (HalesInfamous)

Croke Park[edit]

Have you got a source to back the assertion that Ireland's home games will be at Croker? The article Croke Park states that the GAA had made clear that they would not host soccer and rugby beyond 2008. Both articles can't be right. Kevin McE (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Lansdowne Road would be back up and running by 2009, but evidently not. The official Six Nations fixtures are here: [1], and they list Croke Park as the venue...Nouse4aname (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this from the IRFU page, which also suggests Croke Park will be used... Nouse4aname (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine: I've pointed out the anomoly at Croke Park's article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Johnson?[edit]

Can someone explain, (preferably with some references), why the team manager of England is put down as head coach? Is it an official position of the English rugby union? Or are we so desperate to fill the table for a championship 7 months away that we cannot wait for an official announcement?
If we are going to make such assumptions why not put the name of the captains as well. FFMG (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Johnson was appointed as England's team manager in April 2008, starting his job on 1 July 2008. Since April, Johnson has appointed a couple of new specialist coaches, but despite these appointments there has been a significant drop in the amount of news stories regarding the "Head Coach" position. The indication is, therefore, that Martin Johnson's position is cognate with Brian Ashton's old job, acting as the head coach but with more executive responsibilities and delegating coaching duties to the specialist coaches, similar to a football manager. – PeeJay 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this is your POV, your assumption, that because there has been less and less stories about head coaches that, in 7 months times, he will be coach of the national team and he will, in 7 months times or before, do away with the position of head coach all together.
Do you mind if I add at least a reference needed for your assumption? FFMG (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and PeeJay have reverted the addition of Martin Johnson many times over the past few months, however, seeing as it keeps getting added, we figured it may as well stay there, but with a footnote explaining he is not officially “head coach” but team manager. Also check out the England rugby team article, which lists Johnson as the coach. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2].

Saint-Denis[edit]

The Stade de France is in Saint-Denis. Now, Saint-Denis may not be a city, which is what the column title says, but the Stade de France's official website (http://www.stadefrance.com) clearly names the location of the stadium as Saint-Denis. The 2007 Rugby World Cup also named Saint-Denis as a quite distinct location from Paris ([3]), as did the 1998 FIFA World Cup ([4]). So like I said, Saint-Denis may not be a city, but similar to the relationship between Salford and Manchester, it is a large commune within the boundary of the nearby city. – PeeJay 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop being so pedantic about this. You argued last year and lost; the same is happening this year. Saint-Denis is not part of Paris proper - agreed. Most stadiums even slightly outside of a city aren't. But Saint-Denis is in the Paris metro area, and it is in the Île-de-France region. There's even a picture of the stadium at Paris. Enough said. For all intents and purposes, it is in Paris. --Schcamboaon scéal? 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, to all intents and purposes it's in Saint-Denis! The stadium's own website even says so! By the way, your argument that there is an image of the stadium in Wikipedia's Paris article is completely irrelevant as Wikipedia cannot be used as its own source. – PeeJay 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Frenchism, and it is glaringly obvious when looking at the rest of the list (Twickenham is listed as in "London", but the Sade de France is given by commune?) that it's out of place. Consistency does a service to our readers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if its Frenchism, at the 1998 football world cup and the 2007 rugby world cup both list all french stadiums the same, and Stade de France is always in Saint-Denis, the homepage of this tournament even list it it in Saint-Denis.[5] — CHANDLER#10 — 14:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as Wikipedia can't be used as its own source, neither can the Stade de France website, as it is not independent of the subject. The argument is not about whether Stade de France is in Saint Denis - no one can argue that it is not - the argument is about consistency. All the other stadiums are listed by the city that they are located in. The city that the Stade de France is located in is Paris. Just as Twickenham is in London, Mil Stad is in Cardiff and Murrayfield in Edinburgh. Either we leave them all by the city, or change them all to the suburb/locality/commune or whatever. We have had this very same discussion last year, do you intend on doing the same thing every year until you get your way? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean wikipedia list them all, I mean the respective World cup's which currently are mirrored on wikipedia.Stade de France in Saint-Denis, compared to another "Paris stadium" Parc des Princes in Paris (not the suburb anything). Stade de France in Saint-Denis compared again to Parc des Princes in Paris. So for me, the consistency is Saint-Dennis which seems to be treated by most as the location. Other include rsssf.com... — CHANDLER#10 — 15:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. All other stadiums are listed by city in 6N articles, why should the Stade de France be any different? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because source such as FIFA, IRB, the Six nations website all list Saint-Denis as the city, not Paris. — CHANDLER#10 — 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they list Saint Denis as the location, not the city. Just as Twickenham is in the Twickenham suburb of London, Stade de France is in the Saint-Denis suburb of Paris. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the link that Chandler provided, "The Stade de France is found a few kilometres north of Paris in the city of Saint-Denis." Now if that doesn't give the game away, I don't know what does! – PeeJay 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since the link Chandler provided is not the official Six Nations site, I thought I ought to provide the official guide to the Stade de France, as published by rbs6nations.com. As you can see, the page reads "Located a few kilometres north of Paris in St Denis...". I would be quite happy to see Twickenham's location changed to "Twickenham" or Murrayfield's location to "Murrayfield", but this discussion is about the Stade de France, which most reliable sources will tell you is located in Saint-Denis. – PeeJay 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions regarding this have also been started here and here. WP:FORUMSHOP anyone? Let's keep all discussions in one place please? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, WP:FORUMSHOP definitely doesn't apply here. I was merely requesting further input to this discussion. Don't assume bad faith merely because I have a different view to yours. – PeeJay 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has to show the city, otherwise people might think "Saint-Denis? Never heard of that place..." DeMoN2009 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they need to know where it is? Anyway, if it's linked, they can find out that way. Dumbing down is not a good reason to have something a certain way. – PeeJay 17:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to change this particular stadium then we must do the same for all the stadiums. Twickenham in Twickenham and so forth.
I am curious, are any stadiums inside the cities as we have them listed? I think Dublin and Rome are the only 2, (although I think that technically Flaminio is not technically in Rome either). FFMG (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd be straining the definition of "suburb" to describe Murrayfield as out-of-town. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the Millennium Stadium is slap-bang in the middle of Cardiff too. According to rbs6nations.com, the locations of the stadia are as follows:
  • Twickenham Stadium - Twickenham
  • Stade de France - Saint-Denis
  • Croke Park - Dublin
  • Stadio Flaminio - Rome
  • Murrayfield Stadium - Edinburgh
  • Millennium Stadium - Cardiff
So there you go... – PeeJay 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply no justification for identifying some stadiums by the area of the major city they are in. Look at a map, Saint-Denis is within the boundaries of Paris. Simple as. Just as Twickenham is within London. If you really want to be pedantic, the Millennium Stadium is in the "City Centre" area of Cardiff, and Murrayfield in the Murrayfield area of Edinburgh - why not change those too? It is not a case of "dumbing down", it is a simple case of deciding what is important. The exact location is clearly needed on the SdF article, but is unnecessary here, where we simply use the city. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what about this? Saint-Denis has its own city council (see the External links section of Saint-Denis. Seems to be a separate city to me. Furthermore, as User:Saebhiar pointed out at WP:RU:

"Twickenham is part of a borough of London, it has a London Postcode and the mayor of London has jurisdiction over Twickenham. Whereas Saint-Denis is an independent city, with its own postcode and its own mayor. It's not even in the same département as Paris. Everything outside of the boulevard périphérique (bar a couple of parks) is considered to be another administrative division different from Paris (which explain why Paris proper is so small in size compared to London). While Twickenham is a borough of London (and Brooklyn a borough of NY) Saint-Denis is definitely NOT a borough of Paris."

– PeeJay 12:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this highlights that this is a cultural issue. That most of the city of Paris is not actually within the city of Paris proper is a distinction of local government, not one of geography. In the interests of making articles accessible we should use the best frame of reference here, which is "Paris". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Saint-Denis is NOT within the boundaries of Paris, PeeJay and User:Saebhiar are right. It's a suburb of Paris...and an independant commune and city (in France, a commune with more than 2.000 inhabitants is considered a city by INSEE.) Look at this map [6], Saint-Denis is in Seine-Saint-Denis. May I propose something like Saint-Denis, near Paris ? I think it's a good compromise.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it found on a map of Paris? [7]. Perhaps we should tell this to the RBS Six Nations website, as under venue information, the city guide is for Paris, not Saint-Denis. [8]. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a map of Paris, it's a map of Paris + Hauts-de-Seine (92, West) + Seine-Saint-Denis (93, North-East) + Val-de-Marne (94, South-East). We call that region "la petite couronne".--Latouffedisco (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which together form the Paris metro area. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the link you gave is even says "Located a few kilometres north of Paris in St Denis"... outside of Paris. — CHANDLER#10 — 11:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
North of the city centre. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nouse4aname, maybe you should also tell the Six Nations website that Twickenham Stadium is in Twickenham, not London! [9] Seriously, look, if you were going to a match at the Stade de France or Twickenham, which cities would you want information about? Paris and London, of course, but that doesn't mean that the stadia themselves are located in those cities. – PeeJay 11:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twickenham is part of greater London, just as Saint-Denis is part of the Paris metro area. The two stadiums are located within the boundaries of the respective cities. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, Greater London is a county that covers the City of London and its surrounding settlements, of which Twickenham is one. I dare say that the situation is similar with the Paris metro area and the cities of Paris and Saint-Denis. – PeeJay 11:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? It's still London. Or are you wanting to define the city only as the historic "city of London"? When referring to London as a city, it is greater London that is being referred to, not the tiny square mile with a population of less than 10,000. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The county or metropolitan is not the same thing as the city. File:EnglandLondon.png all that red is not considered within the city London. File:Svcmap stockholm.png all that blue is not the city Stockholm. Latouffedisco has explained the situation in France quite well, and it is similar to the situation ins Sweden as well. Similar Råsunda is outside Stockholm in Solna, which is a part of "Greater Stockholm", but not the city. — CHANDLER#10 — 12:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "all that red" is the city. See London#Districts. Nouse4aname (talk)
Is there something in the term "Frenchism" which people are failing to get at here, by continually reasserting things preceeded by "in France"? France defines cities differently from the rest of the world. We either use one standard for France and one standard for everywhere else, or we apply the same standard to France as we do to everywhere else. The former is confusing. The latter contradicts official sources (which are based on the original French origin), but is arguably less confusing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aren't countries allowed to define their own cities? (Though I'm sure there's some EU regulation for what can be considered a city now) — CHANDLER#10 — 13:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we're not compelled to listen to them :) The point here is that the city is given for a geographic frame of reference and not a municipal one. Using the same scope as the other articles (i.e. being no more precise than the major population centre) is a service to our readers in that it allows them a better frame of reference for the location of the stadium than the commune, which isn't of international reknown. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We aren't trying to redefine cities, just provide a simple and recognisable reference. I can't see any compelling reason for using "Saint Denis" when this will inevitably lead to a response of "where?". This is not "dumbing down" it is just about figuring out what is important. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are trying to redefine the borders of Paris. To compare, Old Trafford lies outside Manchester, in Trafford, it would not only dumbing it down it's misleading... And "where?" is always the question to if you're faced with a new place, that isnt a reason for not giving the right location... If you want to know where London or Saint-Denis IS click on the link. You don't just put the biggest town that is close. — CHANDLER#10 — 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our coverage of Old Trafford goes out of its way to point out that Trafford is a borough of Greater Manchester. If the point were really stretched, we'd give "Manchester" as its location if pressed for a geographic frame of reference. "Just click the link" is an unacceptable answer; articles are meant to stand themselves, and users shouldn't be expected to have to click around just to get the gist of a concept. Nobody is trying to "redefine the borders of Paris" - "Paris" is a perfectly acceptable shorthand for Région parisienne when it comes to providing a geographical frame of reference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small Query[edit]

Sorry, I know this is more content than article, but can anyone explain what "c" stands for as in "Tries: Harinordoquy 15' c"? YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to each try's conversion attempt, "c" stands for "converted", and "m" stands for "missed". – PeeJay 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance figures[edit]

Is there some official source for attendance figures? According to the match report for the France-Scotland game on the RBS 6 Nations official site, and several newspapers, the attendance at Stade de France was 80,000, which is the stadium's capacity. But the BBC (and several other newspapers) give the attendance as 65,000, which implies that nearly 20 percent of the seats were empty. If there isn't an official source, and unofficial sources differ so much, is the information worth including?-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've got both the BBC and Sky Sports reporting the attendance as 65,000, and since those two are the biggest broadcasters of sport and news in the UK, and the BBC actually has the rights to broadcast the Six Nations, we should probably go with them. – PeeJay 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do the broadcasting rights have to do with it? The TV companies are the last people to be concerned with how many people chose to go to the game; they're only interested in armchair viewers. The Official 6 Nations site (to which the article links) gives 80,000, as does The Times (the Guardian OTOH says 65,000). The French site, L'Equipe, gives a figure of 79,600, which agrees with my own impression, watching on TV at home, was that the stadium was nearer to full than 20% empty, but that's purely subjective. My point remains, however, that there is no official source for these figures, so why should we prefer the BBC to other sources?-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The website of the Fédération Française de Rugby gives the figure as 79,600. That's about as close as one can get to an "official" source, so I'm going to amend the figure to that.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the  Ireland template for Ireland.[edit]

Hey there, I've edited the article using the template, so that Ireland is shown the same way as other nations (with the flag and the links to both the country and the national team), but was reverted. Is there a reason for that? I did look through the discussion page before doing it, but found no reason for Ireland standing out like that. Zhuravskij (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put it back there. Please state the reasons for reverting if you do. Zhuravskij (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion over at WT:RU that established that, since the flag that the Irish rugby union team competes under (File:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg) is a derivative of a copyrighted work, that flag cannot be used, and any other flag would either be incorrect (e.g. the flag of the Republic of Ireland) or an originally synthesised flag (the shamrock flag that was present before), which would be against WP:MOSICON (quote: "The practice of inventing a new icon to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research"). Cheers. – PeeJay 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry for insisting then. It looks ugly though :) Zhuravskij (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but better to have nothing there at all than to have something that is incorrect or goes against policy. – PeeJay 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Zhuravskij (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The noflag is a good idea. Looks better at least justified the same way as other teams. Zhuravskij (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the noflag is a terrible idea. Ireland uses banners when competing in Rugby Union games internationally and at home. Having no flag by Ireland's name make it look like there's nothing that represents Ireland when they compete. But, there is. When competing at Home (ie. Croke Park or Landsdowne) the anthems that are sung are Amhrán na bhFiann and Ireland's Call. Amhrán na bhFiann is the Republic of Ireland's National Anthem and Ireland's Call is the National Anthem for Island of Ireland in many international sports events including Rugby Union, Hockey, Cricket, and Rugby League. When Ireland is competing away from home. The only Anthem that's sung is Ireland's Call. This Anthem was commissioned by the Irish Rugby Football Union in 1995. This has been done in conjunction with the flying of both the Irish Republican flag and the Ulster flag. Unfortunately, during away games the host countries usually allow only one banner per team and so in this case the Tri Colour flag is used. But, when more than one banner can be used, both the Tri Colour flag and the Ulster flags are flown. So, because of this, I think using both the Tri Colour flag and the Ulster flag by Ireland's name is both appropriate and correct. Because of this, I'm changing it to use both those flags. Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it difficult to find the correct flag reference. The Ulster Flag that's flown, I believe, is the red and white flag, but I've also found the red and yellow Ulster flag. When I reference flagicon Ulster, it comes up with the red and yellow flag. So for now, I'm going to use the red and yellow Ulster flag and the Tri Colour ROI flag. If someone knows the correct flag, please replace it. Thanks. Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found out that it's the red and white Ulster flag that is used. Which is referenced as the Northern Ireland flag when using the flag template. So that is what I'm using. This should appease everyone. The word Ireland is linked to Ireland National Rugby Union team just like all the other countries links, and before it there's the Ulster flag and the ROI Tri Colour flag.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Irish Flag is NOT the TRICOLOUR[edit]

Could someone please fix the flag to the Rugby one, as the Republic's flag is neither appropiate or correct. Use the Shamrock one as on other Irish rugby pages or the Cross of St. Pat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.28.43 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the official one

Ireland Image:IRFU_Flag_of_Ireland.svg

can someone please put this up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.28.43 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image and cannot be used here per WP:NFCC. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of which Irish flag? discussion[edit]

Seems to have been started here Archive 1 - Flag of Ireland then started again here Archive 4 - IRB vs. IRFU all-Ireland flags before restarting here Wider opinion needed regarding banner and flag use, here IRFU Flag and here Removing Ireland flags

Although all other six nation teams are represented by their national flag and it seems the irish team does in fact sometimes use this flag at tests as well. However there seems to exist reasons for some wikipedia editors to believe this may not be appropriate. Sadly I am largely ignorant of the more practical aspects of Irish history as they relate to flags and their national teams - however Irish Rugby Football Union#History gives a good consise explanation. Anyway on first appearance it is strange not to see the national flag icon but I get it now. Nevertheless the 2009 six nations article employed all three alternatives on one page for the same team - no flag, irish flag and IRFU flag!!! I guess this page suggests that as yet no clear and generally accepted consensus has been reached. Just as a tidying up exercise I put the  Ireland in rather than blank or image:IRFU Flag of Ireland.svg, and only then discovered the above long-running debate and issues. ROxBo


seems to be a awful lot of whining about the Irish flag.... Jcforge (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. We can't use the correct Irish flag, so Wikipedia regs say that we should leave a blank space. Can we drop this now? – PeeJay 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the powers that be want to get so technical about all this then what about Wales? Technically Wales isn't actually a country and therefore doesn't actually have a national flag.

But Wales is a country: it is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. And if Wales doesn't have a national flag, then what is this? – PeeJay 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wales is historically a constituent part of the Kingdom of England (having been absorbed by England in the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542). The Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland formed Great Britain in the Act of Union of 1707. Cornwall has a flag - doesn't make it a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.164.124 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Leading try scorers"[edit]

By definition, all the try scorers are not the leading ones. As well as being (therefore) self-contradictory, the list is unencyclopedic and should be trimmed drastically. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag warring[edit]

If the edit wars over the Irish flag don't stop, I'll protect the article. Discussion should take place here, consensus emerge and then be followed. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I hereby direct discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#IRFU Flag. Any discussion that goes on here can be overruled by discussion at the WikiProject, so we may as well continue the discussion that is already in progress. Furthermore, it seems that the current consensus is to leave Ireland using the {{noflag}} template until a more suitable solution can be found, so any action taken that is contrary to that consensus could conceivably be treated as vandalism, now that people are aware of the current consensus. – PeeJay 10:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Six Nations Championship. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2009 Six Nations Championship. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Six Nations Championship. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 Six Nations Championship. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Six_Nations_Championship&oldid=1196550060"