Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league

Welcome to the discussion page of the Rugby League WikiProject! To start a new discussion section, please click here

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 4.

Shortcuts

WikiProject Rugby league was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 6 January 2016.

Salford Red Devils

Re today's announcement, all major sources, including the RFL are describing Salford as a "new" team. Should not the current Salford Red Devils page continue to describe it as a former club, with a new page being created for the new club, in line with other Wikipedia articles about phoenix clubs? Mn1548 (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Northern isn't a separate article and their liquidation in 1963 led to the expunging of results, so unless this "new"club is going to disassociate itself from all of the Red Devils achievements and history then no it shouldn't be a separate article. Nthep (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think its WP:TOOSOON to be definitive about this. The Bradford Northern case as above is interesting, might have to do some digging on how that turned out. Admittedly, I've provided links to Salford R.L.F.C. in the main and 2025 season articles, which currently redirects back to the Red Devils page, but unless we hear anything concrete about the RFL allowing the new club the rights to use the 'Red Devils' name and brand, a-la Bury A.F.C. (see this article), I don't think we can be too certain. In reference to the Bury case, it might take them a few years to regain the rights to name, honours, etc., but that might be expedited by Salford being in the Championship as opposed to how many levels down the English pyramid Bury were at the time? Hullian111 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is always a tricky subject. In the absence of anything definitive, it's best to keep as a single article. The tendency for rugby league clubs seems to be, rightly or wrongly, that the town's new club inherits the history and records of the old club, regardless of how many iterations of the club there have been (Bradford being the most extreme example) or how and why the new club is formed (relocations, mergers, liquidations). I don't particularly agree with this approach, but it seems to be generally accepted in most reliable sources. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this Q&A with one of the new owners:

LRL: The IP rights of the previous club appear to be a complex issue. Does that lead to the possibility of there being a name change – and is there appetite to start with a new name?

MCB: Let me be clear: this will always be a Salford club. There have been lots of rumours about Manchester but this is Salford rugby league, and it will have Salford at the heart of it. We’re going to pick a name that fits the ethos and culture of the club.

LRL: Could you retain the Red Devils name at this stage?

MCB: It will most likely be a new start and a new name. We want to make sure we’re doing it right though, and we will be engaging with our fans every step of the way on what that could look like.

Looks as though the Red Devils name is going to be dropped, and a 'new start' might be code for saying the club's honours and records are going to be left with the old club... for now, at least. Hullian111 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The club now has a new website and new social media. I propose re purposing the Salford R.L.F.C. page for the new club with them looking to use that name and no longer use Salford Red Devils. Mn1548 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not in favour. This is still going to be Salford, might be Salford something else and not Salford Red Devils but it's still the same club as far as most sources are concerned. The IP rights are a side-issue as they're owned by the liquidators of the old owners, hence new accounts. Nthep (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m of the opinion that this Salford club is a continuation of the old one. We don’t have multiple articles for Bradford. I don’t know why the likes of Hunslet and Newcastle have two articles Northern Wonder (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are not a continuation. Salford RLFC were chosen as a new consortium after Red Devils was wound up. This is akin to Macclesfield FC being a new team in the aftermath of Macclesfield Town being wound up. I urge you to look into this properly: Red Devils haven't just rebranded, they no longer exist doktorb _words^deeds 20:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add evidence, here's proof that Salford RLFC is a new team, not a continuation. https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12040/13486628/salford-rugby-league-team-granted-entry-into-the-2026-championship-under-new-consortium-led-by-mason-caton-brown and https://www.rugby-league.com/article/64448/rfl-approves-salford-rlfc-ltd-membership-and-2026-betfred-championship-entry Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 20:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that no-one is treating it as a new club. Yes, it's a new owning entity and they're not going to use the red devils name (although that seems to be because they don't want to buy the IP rights from the liquidator more than anything) but other than that, everything is pretty much as before. Nthep (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except the fixtures and the main article are for a team that no longer exists. doktorb _words^deeds 21:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
so when they settle on a name, we can move the article to Salford RLFC/RFC. Nthep (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting it. Moving the article suggests they are the same entity with a new name. This isn't the case. Salford Red Devils have been dissolved, the group/business/entity no longer exists. Salford RLFC is a brand new entity. This isn't a renaming, it's brand new doktorb _words^deeds 22:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think your understanding how the sport regards it. New legal entity, different name (well old name actually) but as far as the game and the press and supporters are concerned, it's a continuation of Salford RL in the same way that Bradford Northern/Bulls have been dealt with (more than once). Nthep (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, a page move has now been requested on the club talk page here. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Salford Red Devils#Requested move 13 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Salford Red Devils#Requested move 13 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 08:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

National Conference League new article

Should a new article be created for the National community leagues? All reports say that the NCL has been dissolved and replaced by National Community Rugby League or is this just a continuation of the NCL? High Caffine Content (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a re-structure - the RFL recognise it as the league's 40th anniversary. [1] Re-naming the existing article seems more appropriate. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The NCL wound itself up a couple of weeks ago. The RFL seem to be calling them the National Leagues or the National Community Rugby League [2]. Nthep (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly, they seem to be calling it National Leagues, National Community Rugby League and National Conference League. They’ve said the top division will be called NCL 40 this year.

If NCL has been disbanded and they drop the name all together next year then I propose a new page for the new NCRL comp High Caffine Content (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Paris Saint-Germain Rugby League page

A couple years ago, I took a shot at improving the PSG Rugby League pages. Over the last couple months, a Venezuelan PSG fan named DroopyDoggy, who asserts control over most club-related articles on Wikipedia, has edited the main PSG RL page close to 250 times, all without summary or justification. He has apparently done this on other articles as well, as his talk page shows a history of edit wars, copy pasting and vandalism.

A large share of these edits consists of content paraphrased or copied from the season pages to artificially beef up the main page, which I guess he has some special claim over. Some of the edits he made (later rescinded) were even duplicates of stuff that already existed on the main page. Much of the content taken from the season pages was based on paywalled refs, which I suspect he never had access to.

For instance he completely changed the meaning of a sentence he moved over: "According [to] Lindsay, had it not been for the pressure of the British clubs, the RFL would have eagerly entered Paris for a third Super League season." The original and its ref say that the FFRXIII, not RFL, had told Lindsay that they wanted Paris to play a third season.

Some additions seem to be motivated by his insistence on inserting references to the PSG fansite from which he draws most of his non-football info (paris-canalhistorique.com), and which has a couple pages about PSG RL.

Although PSG's import contingent fluctuated greatly during 1996, he attempts a definitive breakdown of the team's nationalities, which is really cobbled together from a paris-canalhistorique.com bit pertaining to an early version of the squad, and a couple other names he could find. He counts 11 imports, including "one New Zealander" and "Englishman Darren Adams". But Darren Adams was the New Zealander. The Englishman presumably was Jonathan Griffiths but, by the time Griffiths arrived, the roster had strayed even further from what is reported here.
He adds that Utoikamanu and Adams were the only players not to perform double duty with a French championship club, which is untrue.
Because paris-canalhistorique.com says that the "team was founded on 28 December 1995", he added that to the article (it is actually the day the sponsorship agreement between PSG and the team was announced). Meanwhile, he has deleted mentions of the Paris Rugby League association located at the FFRXIII's headquarters, which was established earlier.

More debatable or gratuitous changes have been made:

To illustrate the fact that PSG did not directly own the RL team, a sentence mentioned that it had the same type of affiliation with PSG as Stade Français RU (despite the latter not being rebranded PSG). This has been cut.
A sentence mentioning that traveling British fans had to pay despite attendance being free for the Paris crowd has been to altered to omit that difference in treatment.
A phrase mentioning that Rodney Walker was a political rival of Maurice Lindsay within the RFL (to explain its two conflicting stances regarding PSG) has been cut.
The name of PSG's farm team has been shortened from "PSG Espoirs Île-de-France" to just "PSG Espoirs", despite the attached ref clearly showing a "PSG Espoirs IDF" logo and naming an exec as "PSG Espoirs IDF president."
The subsidiary News Corp. Australia has been inserted as backer of the European Super League, despite refs and original text identifying parent News Ltd.
The Australian Rugby League has been replaced by the Australian Rugby League Commission, which did not exist under this name.

A rare new reference contributed by DroopyDoggy is a post by social journalism site pt:BlastingNews. Some of it appears to be based on an old version of the PSG RL Wikipedia article, or the paris-canalhistorique.com that once served as its sole source, possibly leading to instances of circular sourcing. He also uses general considerations contained in that BlastingNews post as the basis for some original writing, although I question how much consideration has really gone into it.

A segment about the influence PSG had on future French entrants into the RFL system mentions Toulouse Olympique joining Super League in 2026, ignoring the previous seasons spent by the club in SL and the lower RFL divisions.

Another section about the team's demise appears to be thinly disguised copy-pasting of copyrighted content:

"With profitability at an all-time low, attendances falling to between two and three thousand, and a controversy that damaged the reputation of the still-nascent Super League, the RFL was hesitant to continue supporting the Parisian project." [Original sentence from BlastingNews=With profitability running at an all-time low, crowds into the two to three thousand mark, and now a revelation that smeared the reputation of Super League - a competition that was still very much in its infancy - the Rugby Football League (RFL) would simply not tolerate the Paris project any longer.]
"Disengaged from the rugby league heartland in the south of the country, PSG RL was probably doomed from the start." [Also found in a PA Media report from veteran RL writer Ian Laybourn="Detached from the rugby league heartland in the south of the country, the Paris project was probably doomed from the start."]

I welcome other users' improvements, but IMO many of these edits are vanity-driven and have not been made in good faith. I would like to trim some of this stuff back, but given how relentless this guy has been in his edit warring, none of which have resulted in significant penalties, I'm not sure I want to get into it. Is there some way to have an admin assess the situation? Redacwiki (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Panthers

The Panthers have been wound-up but can we refrain from removing them from Championship articles immediately. Developments over the next few days might put things in a Salford type situation quite quickly. Nthep (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree.Fleets (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Park Lane (stadium)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Brogan

Can someone have a word with User:Fleets about correct grammar and following sources, please? They're insisting at Louis Brogan that "Leigh Sports Village" should be preceded by "the", in direct opposition to all published sources (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], etc). I've hit 3RR, so if someone could also remove the "the" from the article too, I'd appreciate it. – Pee Jay 21:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if you have an issue with someone I'd bring it up at their talk page or the article talk page first. If Sky Sports, Sky Sports News and the BBC, and multiple anchors, commentators, pundits and players have been getting it wrong for 15 years or so then I'm happy to leave it be.Fleets (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Except that’s not what they say and you can see what’s actually said in a plethora of published sources. Your source is no better than “trust me, bro”. – Pee Jay 01:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken (the) Leigh Sports Village out of the equation by rewording to just Leigh. Hopefully we can draw a line under a rugby league footballer who has played a grand total of four games at the ground.Fleets (talk)

Just a reminder to any newer WikiProject members that User:Fleets is extremely lucky to still be allowed to edit, and this should always be kept in mind whenever the edit-warring comes up.^[1][2] --Gibson Flying V (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me shocked, tbh. – Pee Jay 01:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes, hopefully they are okay. To me it seems like a reasonably well written article, but always happy to engage with fellow editors of rugby league articles, as we are all here because we enjoy watching rugby league, and want the game to keep on growing.Fleets (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, "with Leigh" is probably what it should have been anyway way. "at [the] LSV" or any stadium is just strange phraseology. The content might have been signed at the LSV but that sentence doesn't actually tell you for what club. Mn1548 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's more what you'd find in a news article, not in an encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 12:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this edit summary. In what world is describing Leigh (which is in Greater Manchester) as being in Greater Manchester "offensive"? – Pee Jay 14:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal for York Knights and York Wasps

There is a discussion at Talk:York Knights#Proposed merger with York Wasps that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EdwardUK (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NCRL and National Leagues

There’s currently a page called National Community Rugby League that’s being used as an umbrella for the competition that have replaced the National Conference Leagues.

However the RFL is officially calling these leagues the National Leagues. Should we rename the NCRL page RFL National Leagues and do the same with the separate league articles e.g. RFL National Premier Division, RFL National Division One, RFL National Conferences High Caffine Content (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RFL website indicates that the National Leagues are part of the NCRL (https://www.rugby-league.com/competitions/ncrl) along with the regional leagues below them in the pyramid and the women's and junior competitions. So the names we currently have as article titles for the separate leagues still seem appropriate, thought the main article could be changed to something like NCRL National Leagues, or expanded to include coverage of the regional and other levels too. EdwardUK (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]