Talk:Celtic League

Celts High‑importance

	Celtic League is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Carn magazine

Is this still being published? The website for this organisation only lists it to 2012.Serpren (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Resolved

– Article no longer has language disputed here.

Comment moved from article -- Ferkelparade π 14:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - some autonomy, an assembly and various provisions under the Good Friday Agreement, but a degree of military occupation.

(Very POV) British Troops stationed in Britain are not military occupation. Could say the same about Scotland Wales and Cornwall. French military in Brittany? - User:217.225.25.11

Reply - Northern Ireland is administered as part of the UK, but is not actually in Britain. Hence the title of the state is the UK "of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland". The comment has been changed to say that the CL considers the Six counties to be under military occupation. A considerable number of people in NI itself, and outside it, also consider this to be the case.

The term "Britain" includes all of Ireland, hence the need for the epithet "Great" in "Great Britain". Therefore, Northern Ireland is in Britain, but not Great Britain. - [anonymous]

Um, no. "Britain" doesn't include any of Ireland at all, and even "British Isles" is a Briticism that the Irish do not use. The term "Great Britain" is a translation of French Grande Bretagne ("Great[er] Britain", "Large Britain"). To the French Bretagne ("Britain") is what we call "Brittany" in English and what has sometimes been referred to as "Little Britain" or "Lesser Britain" historically (Petit Bretagne); a Welsh and Cornish colony originally, it has long been politically part of France, and is in continental Europe due south of the UK. The UK uses the "Franglais" phrase "Great Britain" to refer to the political union of the island of Britain, because it sounds impressive and (really) because the British aristocracy used to be Norman French, and for them the distinction between Bretagne and Grande Bretagne was, of course, an important one, all the more so as the Anglo-Normans broke away from France. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles is a Briticism ? Don't be ridiculous. What do the Irish call it then the British and Irish Isles. Why don't we also add the islands of Shetland, Orkney, Wight, Hebrides etc. Do you see where I'm going with this ? The archipegalo is named after the largest island in the group - Britain like many other archipegalos around the world. Doesn't mean people from the British Isles are all British. I certainly don't consider myself British and wish the term Atlantic Archipegalo to be used from now on however you Irish should consider yourself lucky. We Scottish (Nationalists) have to share a island with the British. So even if we get independence we still get called British technically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the lead section (toward the end of it) at British Isles; the most common alternative phrase is simply Britain and Ireland. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These nations are not Celtic

Resolved

– Moot (irrelevant - article is about organisation and its definitions, not any particular editor's).

The nations cited in this article speck a 'Celtic' language. Very few of the people themselves are of Celtic descent. Fergananim.

Most indigenous Europeans are of some Celtic descent, but the Celtic league and congress are based on culture and language in the recent past, not racialist criteria or DNA. MacRusgail

"Most Europeans" are certainly not of "some Celtic descent". Perhaps this indictates the need for a Critcism section in the article reflecting the arbitrary nature of the League?

This argument has nothing to do with this article, which is about the Celtic League and what it defines as Celtic nations, and what it defines as Celtic socio-political goals, and so on. As long as the article doesn't put words in CL's collective mouth or otherwise push a point of view one way or another about CL and its views, this is a moot discussion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic nationalism redirects here

Resolved

– No objection to article split.

Which sounds a bit odd to me, since that article should be about Celtic nationalism as a whole, not this one singular (although very notable) organisation. As such, I'm going to fork it into a new page. - [unsigned]

Museum artefacts

Stale

– No further interest in this discussion in over four years.

"the return of ancient artifacts, removed by the French and British authorities to their own museums."

This makes no sense at all. Scotland, Cornwall and Wales are British. Authorities in these places are British authorities. Is the author meaning to say non-Cornish English? Removed to their own museums, does that mean removed to England? Removed from where? At the British Museum, many Celtic artefacts are from England - should they be sent by right to museums in Scotland or Wales?

The line implies through saying Britain to mean England. Therefore it proposes that England is not Celtic. The basis for being Celtic is a Celtic language. The artefacts are from a time before the current political divisions of Britain, when there were numerous other kingdoms. Therefore the line in question is irrelevant and shows a militancy that reveals an ignorance in those that would see such action taken, and thus does a disservice to this article, unless of course this article is about a group of crackpots and thugs.

What should be said is that artefacts from the Celtic period have been removed from what are now considered to be Celtic countries and are on display in museums in England, and that really annoys us because we have no life, so we want to get them back and then find something else to moan about. Enzedbrit 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "that really annoys us because we have no life, so we want to get them back and then find something else to moan about." Speak for yourself. You've been banging on with the same lines, on usenet and elsewhere for over ten years. Tend to your own house. --MacRusgail 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England

Resolved

– Moot (irrelevant - this article is about an organisation and is views, not any particular editor's).

Why is England not considered one of these nations? I know it's been invaded quite a few times, but the celtic routes are still quite apprent in England even today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.130.209 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "routes" I take it, you mean "roads". England is not considered one of these nations for two reasons. Firstly, it no longer has a Celtic language, unless you count Cornwall, and the CL doesn't consider Cornwall part of England, and secondly, the movement is partly to gain independence from imperialist states such as France. --MacRusgail 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, whether you or I would consider England a Celtic nation isn't relevant to this article, which is about the Celtic League organisation and (intrinsically) what it considers a Celtic nation. PS: The anon clearly ment "roots", nout "routes". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CelticLeagueLogo.gif

Resolved

– Old news.

Image:CelticLeagueLogo.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverting

Stale

– Nothing further on this editing dispute in over 3 years.

I tidied this article recently, creating fresh wikilinks, reducing the excessive linking to others, e.g. the Celtic nations article, and removing unnecessary capitalisation. My edits have been reverted no less than three times, all without explanation. I'd like one.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because you keep altering "Kernow" to "Kern" for some unknown reason.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe"? You ought to know, you've done it twice already! Instead of adding two letters, you revert dozens of improving edits? I'm underwhelmed.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep shortening "Kernow" to "Kern"?--MacRusgail (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a disgustingly dishonest characterisation of my edits, MacRusgail, and a very weak justification for your own. Wise up.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you keep shortening it to "Kern", what's the point of that? --MacRusgail (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeding you anymore, Mac.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should both refrain from treating Wikipedia like Usenet. Lapsed Pacifist had a valid complaint regarding sloppy reversion, and MacRusgail had a valid complaint about sloppy editing. The simple and obvious fix would have been to undo the reversion but fix the "Kern" typo, and not call each other names. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability.

Resolved

– Has not been WP:AFD'd over 2 years later, and Notability established by multiple, independent, reliable sources.

I'm restoring the notability tag until such times as notability is justified and reasonable third-party sources are provided for this organisation. I have stopped short of applying a deletion tag, although I think that will likely be the appropriate end for this article. --Breadandcheese (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"no third party or reputable references" - Completely untrue, if you actually read the article. I suppose you are claiming that the BBC is not "reputable". Also, I suggest you look up Gwynfor Evans and Robert McIntyre, who were the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the SNP for years as well.

"I think that will likely be the appropriate end for this article" - your personal opinion and what is appropriate for Wikipedia are not one and the same. -MacRusgail (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no third party or reputable references establishing the notability of the organisation - the BBC article does not mention it at all. Indeed, that part of the article should be removed: there is no evidence of any participation by this organisation whatsoever. As for looking up Gwynfor Evans and Robert McIntyre, none of the sources provided for either of their articles reference this Celtic League at all, nor would a brief mention of it establish notability.

So no, there's no evidence of notability whatsoever. As for your second paragraph, that's just a cheap attempt at insult. I have restored the tag - if you're bothered about this article remaining, then perhaps you can find some proper, verifiable sources as to its existence and notability in accordance with the relevant guidelines. --Breadandcheese (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding references has become considerably more problematic since the rugby tournament was started, and is made more difficult by all the Celtic FC refs that keep on turning up. But they can be turned up quickly - e.g. this reference from the Scotsman

That wasn't a cheap insult - it's pretty obviously politically motivated, judging by your other edits. I think it's fairly safe to say that you are a Unionist, and your tag is not an impartial one. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other references -

Scots Independent - Gwynfor Evans tribute (quasi-autonomous SNP newspaper)
[1] "I met him [Gwynfor Evans] at a Celtic League meeting years ago"
Googlebooks scan Celtic Identity and the British Image by Murray Pittock (Manchester University Press), - p111

It's not politically motivated at all, if I come across a page which does not fit with guidelines, I'll edit it accordingly. On Wikipedia, I have no political views and think (unlike some) that it is inappropriate to voice any that I might have elsewhere on here. So, my question is, if this organisation is verifiable, why are you not adding these sources to the body of the article? Even with these sources, the majority of the article remains unverified. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight references are given - much more than the average wikipedia article. Granted, some of them are from the CL website, but I think that's only fair, if you're quoting their aims and objectives etc. But then again, I still smell a political motivation here.--MacRusgail (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I hate to burst your Scots nationalist conspiracy theorist bubble, that's not the case at all. Your basis for this absurd accusation is that I have edited pages on a similar theme recently: in case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia does tend to inter-link pages: it's hardly surprising, is it? Yes, quoting their website is fine, but it does not and cannot establish notability. You've provided at least two documents that do go a great deal of the way towards establishing notability: include them in the page, and you've improved it. There, a happy outcome for all, no? Rather dispels the notion that I'm some sort of malign force attempting to rob you of your rather inappropriately declared political allegiances, doesn't it? --Breadandcheese (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I hate to burst your Scots nationalist conspiracy theorist bubble" - thanks Mr B&C, you've just proven my point for me.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titles and languages

Resolved

– Fixed.

Might it be advisable to reorder either the various titles of the organisation ('Ar Kevre Keltiek'...) or the list of languages so that the languages in each match up? 86.140.193.129 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this pass WP:WEB?

Resolved

– Has not been WP:AFD'd over a year later, and Notability established by multiple, independent, reliable sources.

I'm not happy with this has been a couple of clicks away from major country articles, like Wales. Does this actually pass WP:WEB? It should be up for deletion if not. Wikipedia is not simply webspace for everything out there. It has particular inclusion rules (see WP:notability, WP:not, WP:sources etc). Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. This organisation has been around for decades, its main publication was edited by a notable Irish writer & political activist, and the organisation and/or its publications are mentioned in plenty of independent, reliable sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flag issue (again)

Resolved

– Flags shown are those used by the organisation and labeled as such. Later removed anyway.

I rather forgot about this one. The flag of the Republic of Ireland is the tricolour. It is not the flag of the island of Ireland. It should not be presented as such in an encyclopaedia. Seems very simple to me. As the list would look somewhat silly with one flag removed, I'm simply going to remove all flags. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great,not more of this crap I am reverting them back,they are an important part of the article,this is the Celtic League article not the Commonwealth.

The flags are staying if unsatisified with the tricolour post your reasons why,and put forward what flag should be used instead.This article will not be affected by the mundane and asinine political viewpoints of a select few people.Sheodred (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I changed my mind,it is best for now to remove the flags,until a template for the Irish Provinces flag is created.Sheodred (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm marking this "resolved". The flags have been restored, without further dispute, but are clearly labeled as the flags that the organisation that is the subject of this article uses. The fact that the org does use certain flags to refer to certain places and that this usage does not agree with current political usage might itself be a topic of notable interest with regard to this organisation (with sources, of course). There's not even a WP:ICONS issue here, since the flag images are used to identify the flags under discussion, not used as decoration, nor used to push a position, make a claim of nationality, or anything else problematic. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs.

They've been removed again, but I don't see any controversy arising from it, so leaving it marked "Resolved". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Branch defunct?

I can't find any evidence that CLAB still publishes One Nation, One Soul or even exists at all. Their website is gone. Contact info I can find does not include a phone number, and the online info dates to back when Prodigy (the online service) was still around. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I write as Assistant General Secretary of the Celtic League. The USA Branch is not defunct. It doesn't publish its own magazine anymore. It is a recipient of 'Carn'. We have National branches in the six Celtic countries of Alba (Scotland), Breizh (Brittany), Cymru (Wales), Éire (Ireland), Kernow (Cornwall), Mannin (Isle of Man), territorial branches in England, the USA and in Patagonia and an international branch.There is also a trial territorial Branch in Nova Scotia.

The entry regarding our status at the UN is worded incorrectly. The correct information is as follows: "The Celtic League is an accredited NGO with roster consultative status to ECOSOC (The United Nations Economic and Social Council)"

The Celtic League was one of several NGOs and politicians which successfully campaigned for the recognition and inclusion of the Cornish people into the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities where they now join the Scots, Welsh and Irish. (FCPNM) Link to announcement: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cornish-granted-minority-status-within-the-uk and the FCPNM is here: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm

M.J Chappell contactable at: ags {at} celticleague {dot} net Michael Chappell (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shetlands?

Unrelated

– Pan-Nordic topics like Shetland independence are off-topic here.

The Shetland islands are shown within these nations. Shetlanders are of Norse origin and do not consider themselves to be Scots. If Cornwall, within the current legal juradiction of England, is considered a celtic nation then surely the same principle would mean the Sheltands would be granted the same consideration in terms of a Nordic part of Scotland? Dainamo (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. But, there is certainly an argument that Shetland (and perhaps Orkney and the Western Isles) could opt out of an independent Scotland. This article deals with one organisation, the Celtic League, and their map doesn't show Shetland - which could either be an error (the islands lying beyond the northern edge of the map), or deliberate. Their website doesn't make it clear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you have an issue with this, take it up with the Celtic League iself. (Shetland does not appear on their own website, if I remember correctly)

Secondly, both Cornwall and Shetland retain their own laws (stannary and udal respectively) that put some areas outwith Scots and English law.

Thirdly, people from Shetland never use the term "Shetlands", they really don't like it. Seriously! (Also Shetland has no real effort to revive its language, Cornwall does - kids are educated in it)--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For as long as Shetland is administered as part of Alba, then yes, it is part of the area covered by the Alba Branch which does indeed have members there. M.J. Chappell Assistant General Secretary, Celtic League email: ags {at} celticleague {dot} netMichael Chappell (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. As Bejnar notes though, moving the dab page is unnecessary – it can simply be deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– The UN-recognized international organization founded in 1961 makes sense as the primary topic. The rugby competition hasn't been known by this name in years, and changes name frequently (it's had at least 4 names, presently Guinness Pro12) and is usually referred to as the Pro12. References to the rugby thing as "Celtic League" are rarely found outside obsolete sports-specialized sources. The only other entry on the disambiguation page is an ice hockey event known as the Celtic League Cup, not the Celtic League. Also, the disambiguation "(political organisation)" isn't accurate, as the Celtic League is principally a language and culture preservation organisation, and engages in few direct political activities at all. If it were not moved to Celtic League, it should be renamed Celtic League (cultural organisation) or perhaps simply Celtic Leangue (organisation). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (per nom) and (therefore) WP:UNDAB. --В²C ☎ 17:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom., as the primary topic. The dab page will become unnecessary as the Celtic League Cup is only a partial match. And so far as I could find in a 15 minute electronic search, there is no other notable "Celtic League" except the former name of Pro12. I do note a defunct magazine named Celtic League produced by the Manx branch of the cultural organization, and the occurrence of "Celtic leagues" in games such as Football-Manager and NationStates, a nation simulation game. I find that most mentions of the cultural organization in the recent news are due to their expressed political stances, e.g., here, here, and here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927234108/http://www.independence1st.com/news/celtic_league_backs_if.shtml to //www.independence1st.com/news/celtic_league_backs_if.shtml

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]