Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union

❧

Wikipedia

WikiProject Rugby Union announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss
Announcements and News

Articles for deletion

  • 29 Nov 2025 – Murad Dadashev (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Spiderone (t · c) was closed as delete by Extraordinary Writ (t · c) on 06 Dec 2025; see discussion (8 participants)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles for creation

Request for review: Limassol Crusaders

Collaboration

Current Collaboration - None
Nominations

Requested articles

more

Add this to-do list to your User page! {{WPRU Announcements}}

Content dispute on Sharks rugby page(s)

Bringing this here to try and get some more views on this. Whybeetoo has added large Junior Squads to the main page. While a source for the squad does exist on the main Sharks website (although not included) I think it's fancruft and not suitable for an encyclopedic article and that the section on the Sharks Currie Cup page should suffice, as we don't include for other South African sides. There's also a dispute on whether Currie Cup information should be included on the Sharks (rugby union) page of Sharks (Currie Cup) page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. To clarify my position.
Re Junior Squad:
  • Including the Sharks Junior Squad is in line with Major Top 14 pages detailing the team's "Espoirs" squad. Additionally, the Junior Squad are professionally contracted players
Re Currie Cup:
  • There is no longer a material distinction at the Sharks, Bulls, and Lions between "franchise" and "union" after the introduction of private ownership. The Bulls and Lions brand their teams exactly the same (dropping the Blue from the Blue Bulls and the Golden from Golden Lions). the Sharks add a small modifier "XV" and the Stormers have recently publicised that they are working towards removing the distinction between WP and the Stormers as both teams are now owned by the same entity. I understand this distinction was once relevant - though i'd argue still nebulous - there is now no distinction. Here is an article detailing exactly this: https://www.news24.com/sport/rugby/stormers/iconic-western-province-to-be-permanently-dropped-for-exclusive-use-of-stormers-20240827
  • Crucially, there is no identifiable distinction made practically by the Sharks and Bulls between the player pools of the URC and Currie Cup. WP/Stormers retain a distinction through different websites. The Lions list the URC and Currie Cup squads under different tabs on the same website. The Sharks and Bulls dont identify a differently contracted Currie Cup versus URC squad. The overlap in the Venn diagram of players is almost a perfect circle. The relevant analogy here is professional football and a clubs team competing in the EPL versus the Carabao Cup. While the one may feature more junior squad members, it would make no sense to have different pages for the teams.
  • Formally the Sharks, Bulls and Lions dont distinguish the history of their teams on their websites in describing their teams. They begin their history from the unions formation to date, including super rugby, and now URC and EPCR.
Whybeetoo (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
On list of Junior squads, I would be ok with the U21 squad (listed on Sharks website) to be included but no more than that. The previous squads and junior squads are complete overkill and fancruft. On Currie Cup I'm happy to see what other editors feel, it would take time and userpower to merge/convert all over especially with categories and templates. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Re only u21:
  • The Sharks appear to be transitioning between maintaining a distinction between u21/u19 rugby squad branding and contracting. Their announcements this year only detailed a "Junior Squad" and of those players, the younger ones who would otherwise have played u19 have been featuring in the u21 competition. It would be unclear how to make and enact that distinction. Unfortunately, the Sharks update their website poorly - their Senior Squad is outdated, as is the Junior Squad. They rely on social media for this type of info.
Re overkill on previous Junior squads:
  • It is my belief that this has value ito of tracking general and specific player development and is not about just merely listing names - but there is a deletion discussion ongoing and there is no need to further rehash that here.
Re time to rectify:
  • Yes this would be effort to properly depict. The easiest way forward imo is to convert the currie cup pages to "history of" articles.
Whybeetoo (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I think history of articles would again be overkill, we'd struggle to find enough WP:GNG sourcing (because the majority of it is offline and it's always been difficult to access SA media from offline period) for standalone articles so would likely be a merge and redirect, but not sure whether we would merge EP Elephants to Southern Kings (per the other sides) etc. Keeping them as history of is almost keeping them the same, so we would be rehashing the information in 2 separate articles. We have previously created separate articles for NPC teams in NZ, so maybe the Currie Cup articles could be converted into Natal/Pretoria/Gauteng/Western Province rugby union articles (or however you want to title) detailing history/youth rugby/women's rugby etc and then keeping the other for squads and tournament history etc, but will need a strong consensus either way. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I will take the guidance of others as to what is best. I shifted the main sharks page in way that dealt with this problem; nevertheless it would be sad to lose the detail thats on the Currie Cup page but perhaps that is the only way.
The NPC example isnt relevant here because there is huge distinction between NZ sides and SA sides. The NZ NPC and Super Rugby sides are distinct legal entities and governed separately afaik. The SA sides (Currie Cup and URC) now are ALL owned and governed by the same entity.
The EP Elephants / Kings case is complex and their i would favour distinction. The Kings was jointly owned/governed by 3 provincial franchises (EPRU, SWD and Border) and then was taken over by SA rugby, as opposed to the EP Elephants which was always just the EPRU. As i said, the URC teams and their Currie Cup sides are legally the same entity. Whybeetoo (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I was only using the NZ sides as an example on what could be done in splitting/merging the two pages and that was in reference the the NPC side pages (such as Tasman and Tasman Rugby Union) rather than the Super Rugby sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Understood - the issues is that youth and women's rugby now all fall under the primary sharks team and brand - the same at the Bulls i believe. The work of the KZNRU has been fully folded into the singular Sharks business. So separating the KZNRU (other than explaining its history and structure) out into different places doesn't capture the architecture of the team and business in 2025. Whybeetoo (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
If this is the case, and a similar situation with the other 3 pro teams (Lions, Stormers, Cheetahs) then I'd probably just say a selective merge if we were to go ahead and the CC pages becoming redirect pages. I just don't see there as being enough WP:GNG passing information for standalone pages, especially as there's been a cull of these sorts of pages in other sports (a number I've seen in cricket in the past couple of years, some of which were featured articles). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The best way to look at it is, the unions are all owners of their respective franchise. Some majority, some minority. They all operate as entities under their franchise brand. From URC, to Currie Cup, to youth and schools, they all operate under the franchise brand.
In name only the Stormers/WP are an outlier, but that is only external branding (and possibly set to change). Die Revenant (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Would like a few more opinions on this before going ahead on the changes, although I appreciate there is only a limited number of active project editors now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
There's probably no one-size fits all, given the difference between the cases of the Sharks, and Western Province vs the Stormers (which draw players from WP, Boland and (previously?) SWD), which are quite different. Given the difference between WP and the Stormers at least, I'd argue against a merger for this article (see also WP:CRYSTAL). In the cases of the others, I don't have a strong opinion. Greenman (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, FWIW I wouldn't accept merging some of the articles and not others, I feel that would offer more confusion to the reader than we currently have. Unless we have anymore input I'd suggest leaving for now and reviewing again in the future or when there is more participation, although coverage on the Currie Cup is starting to get quite thin now that separate articles might not even pass GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I am late to the discussion but I agree with the merge of CC and URC team pages. They are, and have been functionally the same team for many years. Combining the pages would be more accurate and manageable. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, the only objection we have now are to merging the Southern Kings article (which I don't agree with merging anyway and should remain separate now they are defunct anyway) and the Stormers/WP articles. I'm not sure I agree with the squad makeup articles given how the First Division is basically semi-pro now anyway and historic regions players were selected for can easily be covered in sections in the main articles. However, I still feel we are short on input still although almost all those that regularly contribute to these articles have now given an opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I don’t want to overbloat the pages, but in the case of the Sharks we could have separate squad templates for URC and CC, similar to how many teams include academy. There isn’t going to be a perfect, elegant solution, but I think we can figure out something that is overall representative of the clubs noting their CC history. Sharks are rather unique in their alignment between URC/SR and CC teams, particularly when it comes to branding, which makes them the easiest to figure out.
Not to mention the fact the extra pages seem to languish, there hasn’t been a significant history update to the Sharks CC page since around 2013. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I am in support of this but to avoid repetition i would lean towards something like (Option 1) having:
1. Senior Squad
2. Junior Squad
and then symbols next to names indicating if they appear in URC/International Comps and/or Currie Cup.
On the downside, I do worry it may be too visually messy with many symbols.
The other option (Option 2) is a URC/International Squad followed by an additional box for additional senior players that only appear in the Currie Cup. Followed by Junior Squad. The thing that makes a mess of this is that the Junior Squad are now playing age group rugby and are heavily represented in the senior squad.
I guess Option 3 is repeating information 3 times with tons of overlap:
-URC/International Squad
-Currie Cup Squad
-Junior Squad
I like this option the least though it may be the clearest visually.
The appealing things about Option 1 is that i think you either get a Senior Contract or a Junior Contract - unsure about other Teams in SA. If you do you are theoretically able to appear in any match for the Sharks. I think for the Currie Cup there may be "Currie Cup" specific contracts awarded but these are short term contracts and can be dealt with like one deals with short term URC deals or medical joker contracts in Top14. Whybeetoo (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
If clutter is a concern, then perhaps just focus on URC and CC squads. I’d agree 3 is a bit much after thinking it over.RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Personally I think this completely overcomplicates it. Just including one squad would be my preferred and then perhaps use italics to denote Currie Cup only players. Given the discussion we've had this should only be 5/10 players anyway especially now there's no overlap on the competitions. I don't understand the obsession with including Junior Squad players just because others exist, especially if the website is out of date, it's just excessive. Having an academy/junior system is fine, perhaps naming Junior Boks/award winners in text, but squad lists for them I see as too much. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Support the italics distinction and one senior squad.
Re the Junior Squad these are professionally contracted rugby players. I believe it is important in telling the story of the club, plus its information that is helpful for people who want to learn about the team or the players. For example now with the just finished u20 rugby championship, people would want to know where those players are contracted professionally.
Its true that (some) teams websites are out of date but teams also use social media these days to communicate these squads. In the case of the sharks the senior URC team is out of date / incomplete on the website! Either way we have that information from the teams and often from independent other sources. Whybeetoo (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to work on a couple of examples for squad boxes and templates over the weekend. On the Junior squads, the U20 players can be listed on the U20 national team article, which should list the teams/university/club they represent so there's no need to include in a squad box in the main article (a lot are in Currie Cup squads anyway this year) and I still believe would be better suited to listed in text or in a separate table. We should always try to use main team pages for sourcing though, the URC team is out of date as we're out of season and will likely be updated in September I'd imagine. News articles are still known for speculation and not always 100% accurate. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
It gets tough. Sometimes players won’t be listed on the main page but end up playing for the side. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not hugely knowledgeable about rugby, but we don't traditionally include reserve teams across the project unless they are eligible for their own stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
    I agree on this point, if they're well sourced and professionals who are in wider squads and representing teams I don't have a problem, but here where we're likely going to be listing a massive squad (URC + European + Currie Cup), adding even more players to the equation (who won't have articles) will just confuse the reader further I think. We're planning to merge this articles to avoid doubt for the reader. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Worked on what a squad list would look like, and a squad template which can be seen below. Any opinions? Squad list does look a bit clustered in my opinion, but I don't think I would be a fan of listing two separate squad lists on the page, especially with the overlaps between the two squads (Lions/Golden Lions squad is almost identical this year, will likely be the same for Cheetahs/FS Cheetahs).

Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I really like that footer template, very clean and easy to read. Still split on the squad box though, that’s just a huge squad and there’s already so many caveats on squad plates such as short term/loan/nationality qualification, I don’t want it to get even more unwieldy.RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
If we're doing two squads in the template, we could perhaps do two collapsable squad boxes. I'm just worried two squads on display are going to be confusing for the reader. I'll see if I can work on something this week. The templates for SA sides are reasonable accurate as well and up to date which is nice. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I think it will overall be less confusing than the current system of having two totally different pages for teams like we have with Sharks (rugby union) and Sharks (Currie Cup). So yes two distinct squads might make readers double take, but overall less confusing than distinct pages for two teams with the same name, logo, stadium etc. While not perfect, it’s certainly an improvement in clarity. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
How about listing like this, collapsible the Currie Cup squadbox during the URC season, and then vice-versa during the Currie Cup season which is now being played in the URC offseason? This could also solve the Academy player issues as well as this could be listed in a permanently collapsed box.

Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I like that of all the given options the best, appreciate you knocking that up! Any other folks have input?
If we do go ahead and merge pages, will need some careful editing to splice them together especially in the history sections. Sharks might be easiest with the basically identical brands. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I've noted some areas to merge on my sandbox also. The FS Cheetahs page is very bare so not much there, WP a bit more difficult due to the current branding but so much of that page isn't sourced anyway. The Sharks page is actually the most detailed of them. Realistically only a couple of paragraphs need to be merged on all and then some tables/statistics/historic players. My plan would be to do at the conclusion of the Currie Cup in September just before the URC starts. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, waiting for the end of season and reevaluating then. Nice work on the templates, really looks good!
RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Other than that it's categories/templates etc but that's not too difficult. We likely will need a new page name for the Lions also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I think this is a good option and am happy with it. Whybeetoo (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Hi all, these are now all merged. Templates/Categories/etc have been requested to be changed over also and old squad templates nominated for deletion. I'll let others decide if they want to add/remove certain bits from each article but I have merged across the basic stuff (some bits look like the require bet sourcing). The only thing not changed currently is the Lions (United Rugby Championship) team name which if people feel needs changing can be request moved for comment. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Adequate manual of style changes

Would there be interest in resolving some ongoing conflicts regarding the suggested layout for player biographies? Over my years of editing rugby union articles, I’ve noticed that many editors, myself included, have strong views on how these biographies should be structured. Reaching a consensus on the points listed below could help reduce the recurring editing disputes.

Lead

I think we should take inspiration from the Manual of Style used for association football player biographies. I’ve outlined three possible approaches for writing the lead: one for players representing their country of birth, another for those representing a different country, and a third for players who have represented both codes of rugby. This area has been the source of frequent conflicts and edit wars, so reaching a clear resolution would go a long way toward tidying up many articles.

Career statistics

I’ve experimented with several different templates for player statistics, but the result has become increasingly messy. Many sports now use a more standardised, universal template for player stats. Establishing a clear format here would help reduce clutter and avoid overly complex tables. Below is a rough draft based on the way most rugby statistics websites present player data. I believe including a dedicated references section is important to ensure the accuracy of the information provided.

Year Team Competition Pld Try Con Pen Dgl Pts Yel Red Ref
2022–2023 Australia 7s Commonwealth Games 620001000[1]
2022–2023 ACT Brumbies Super Rugby Pacific 1490004500[2]
2023–2024 ACT Brumbies Super Rugby Pacific 1380004000[2]
2024–2025 Australia A Autumn Nations Series 20000000[2]
2024–2025 ACT Brumbies Super Rugby Pacific 16110005510[2]
2025–2026 ACT Brumbies British & Irish Lions 11000500[2]
2025–2026 Australia Rugby Championship 11000500[2]

Kidsoljah (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ "Corey Toole Results". Commonwealth Games Australia. 24 August 2025. Retrieved 24 August 2025.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Corey Toole Rugby Bio". RugbyPass. 24 August 2025. Retrieved 24 August 2025.
On leads I think both the Kellaway and Gibson-Park articles are perfectly acceptable as they are clear and concise. On Sua'ali'i I don't think we should be including dual-code in the lead as this may confuse the reader into thinking he is playing both at the same time. Personally I would prefer it to say he's a rugby union player who previously played rugby league. On statistics, we shouldn't be including sevens with rugby union as that's confusing but simple statistics tables are fine but we should try and keep club/region/franchise separate from international. Also, I keep seeing tables of every try that someone has scored in a test and I think these are complete overkill and should be removed (you can easily see this in the infobox and text) and I think there was discussion on it before as well suggesting not using them but they seem to be in use on a large number of articles depending on nation the player represents. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
From List of dual-code rugby internationals, A dual-code rugby international is a rugby footballer who has played at the senior international level in both codes of rugby. That does not necessarily mean they played at the same time, and I'm not sure how many people would be confused about that. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I absolutely support removing the tables of every international try scored by a player. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
How is this for duel codes
Louis (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Incidentally that is what is currently in the lead of his article. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
That would be my preferred lead for dual code or dual sport players. Current sport/code first, previous sport/code in the second sentence. Louis Rees-Zammit's article (as an exmaple) uses all in once sentence, but I think it reads much better as two sentences. Though only time I'd differ was if a player has played rugby sevens predominantly I still think we should lead as rugby union player (i.e. John Smith is a xx professional rugby union player who plays as a xx for xx club xx. He previously/has also represented xx rugby sevens team, participating at the xx Olympics/World Cup). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
The consensus so far appears to support using the Kellaway and Gibson-Park formats for leads. One for players representing their country of birth, and another for those who don’t. For Sua’ali’i, the approach would be to list their current code of rugby first, with their previous history in other codes included further down in the lead.
As for career statistics, it seems we agree that the current tables need an overhaul. My preferred structure would be one table for club and another for international. I’d suggest we create a template to avoid different styles, similar to what most major sports on here have already done. Kidsoljah (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, we need a standardised statistics box for all players, whether that's a template or just a simple table. Using the Corey Toole example we have things such as try ratio and win and loss percentages in there. These are complete overkill. The example as of above is my preference, simple and effective and easy to read, just remove the international bits, or have a subsection of the table for these. I think if we come across articles with every international try listed as well we should start BOLDly removing these also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
would agree in most cases, I think for ones like Rory Underwood where it could be spun out into a stand alone article (similar to List of international rugby union tries by Shane Williams) as a record scorer it should be retained, but for every player it should not be a feature. Skeene88 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
There should have been more time to respond to this before going to a vote; it has only been three days and the fact that editors live in different time zones also means more time is needed to be able to respond to each other's comments.
I still have a few comments and questions. First of all, I don't think editors should be bound by the exact wording proposed here: "... who plays as a wing for Super Rugby club New South Wales Waratahs ...", because the word "club" isn't always accurate. Super Rugby clubs aren't really clubs. Most, if not all, are franchises. Also, extending the proposed sentence to the National Provincial Championship is problematic, because the teams aren't clubs either, but provinces (provincial union teams). That's why in many player biographies we have been using "X is a New Zealand rugby union player, who currently plays as a fullback for the Blues in Super Rugby and for Auckland in New Zealand's domestic National Provincial Championship competition." That's far more accurate. So I hope the proposal doesn't suggest rigidly following these examples; some flexbility with respect to this part of the opening sentence is in my opinion needed. I have no problem with the "nationality part" of the Kellaway and Gibson-Park examples.
Second, how many player biographies actually do contain statistics boxes and how often are they updated? Keeping the infoboxes up-to-date is enough work; keeping statistics tables is way more work. I assume if we agree here on a standardised statistics box for all players, that doesn't create an expectation that all player biographies contain a statistics box? And I also assume that this new standard only applies to the future, unless someone is willing to update all existing statistics boxes if they don't comply with this new standard? Ruggalicious (talk)
I’m not suggesting it needs to be followed word for word. For instance, you’re right that some competitions treat teams as franchises, unions, or use other terms depending on their system. In those cases, “club” should be replaced with whatever is most accurate. If a player is associated with two teams, the one they’re actively playing for should be shown in the lead to avoid confusing readers. As for nationalities, I think it’s important to stick to Wikipedia’s guidelines, which is why I’m pushing for this approach—there have been so many edit conflicts on the matter. Regarding player statistics, the goal is simply to establish a template for handling these cases in future edits. This helps keep player articles tidy and ensures editors have a clear framework for removing unnecessary content, especially in tables. Kidsoljah (talk)

Can we now move toward a conclusion by voting agree or oppose. Below are the changes I propose to be added or changed to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Style for each subsection.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidsoljah (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Support Happy to support these changes. Obviously for some sides and nations seasons only occur over one year, so for Super Rugby players for example we should just list the year as 2025 in this example above. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment this already is the MOS from a consensus discussion 8 years ago? I can't see what is actually changing?Skeene88 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. I support separating the number of tries, conversions, and penalties, as proposed in the above table as the current bio box is misleading when it only shows the number of appearances and number of points. For example for Owen Farrell it shows him scoring 1,237 points in 112 appearances which may mislead readers into thinking he’s a record try scorer, yet he has only scored 10 international tries, accounting for just 50 of those points.
I do not agree with removing the list of International Tries as they tell a very different and more complete story to just a list of tries, whether in the whole of their international career or broken down year by year. It’s relevant who those tries were scored against, for example for Louis Rees-Zammit who plays for first-tier Wales, half of his 15 international tries were scored against second-tier nations, whereas of the 48 international tries scored by former Welsh player Shane Williams the majority were scored against first-tier nations. It is also relevant to know whether a player scored multiple tries in a particular match. Also interesting to know the outcome of the game. All this detail is lost in just a list of points.
As well as supporting separating the players scores in rugby league and rugby union if they are a dual code player, I also agree that for rugby union there should be separate listings for 7 a side and 15 a side, and that a player’s yellow and red cards should be listed.
MrArmstrong2 (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some further thoughts on this. The proposed table including consolidated figures over a year would seem to have some practical issues:
· Firstly, at what point in the year would it be compiled, as Northern and Southern hemispheres have different playing seasons?
· Secondly, who is going to keep a tally of all the statistics for each player and then consolidate them at the end of the year? There’s no point in more than one person doing this. And how can the statistics be checked when they are consolidated?
· Thirdly, it won’t show up-to-date statistics, as the list of international tries provides. In an ideal world, if the list of international tries were to continue, the total could be calculated automatically and entered in the bio box. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1968 Australia rugby union tour of British Isles

Notice

The article 1968 Australia rugby union tour of British Isles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. This tour was not a championship or similar event.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Asafo Aumua

Asafo Aumua has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Couple of Premiership Rugby squad templates

Hi all, have finally started a long awaited clean up of some of our current squad templates. Just want to get people's opinions on the Template:Saracens F.C. squad and Template:Newcastle Falcons squad (just going to move this to new name now) templates. Personally I think they are complete overkill (especially the Saracens) one and should be reverted back to the standard norm of forwards and backs. These are meant to aid navigation for squad players, which I don't think they do in current form. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should use forwards, backs and head coach / DOR like on Template:Gloucester Rugby squad. The main team page can be used for a positional breakdown using Template:Rugby squad start Louis (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
No objection to a template like Template:Western Force to cover lots of the bits in the Saracens template also. If anything this would be preferred. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Totally agree, forwards and backs split is enough for a template like this. Skeene88 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I have standardised these pre-updating squads and transclusions hopefully this week, we'll see if there's any further input on terms of reversions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Dayton Rugby Grounds

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Millennium Stadium

Millennium Stadium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

R360

Is R360 notable for a page? I know they have no branding and website yet (and there has been quite a lot of public backlash) but today the national unions of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, England, Scotland, France and Italy released a joint statment saying that "Each of the national unions will therefore be advising men’s and women’s players that participation in R360 would make them ineligible for international selection." I would say though that currently there seems to be far more content and press coverage against R360 than there is for R360. Louis (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Given I just spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find anything about this thing, here is something. I think it probably falls into the TOOSOON category. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Barbarians articles

Looks like there are now two articles about the Barbarians club - Barbarian F.C. and Barbarians F.C.. Assume that one of these needs deleting, but which one? The second appears to be a copy of the first. Anyone have any thoughts on the one to go? Bcp67 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

speedy delete per CSD A10. I've nominated it already. Louis (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Second one is clearly a copy. Have had issues with some of the creators edits before (not major, just unexplained) Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks both for the replies and for raising the speedy. Bcp67 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mark Hammett

Mark Hammett has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)