Talk:2026 AFL season

I just want to get everyone's thoughts on this, the club leadership table format looks a bit messy given how some clubs have their references on the Captain collum, some on the Vice-captain collum and some on the leadership group collum, as well as now that all the coaches require citation BEFORE being added (which is not the same for other sports leagues and we have missed all the sources we do not have).

I accept 4TheWynne wants the article to be GA status, but I think the fact that the table looks a little messy and disorganised can hinder that. What I am asking is, should we add an extra column to the club leadership table, which is specifically for references? For example, it can look similar to this.

This table looks cleaner than the 2025 Club leadership table in my honest opinion, with references not being in multiple columns but being in the same area, which is also like other lists, on other AFL-related pages. E.G. 2025 AFL Draft retirements list.

The only downside to doing this, however, is possibly having to go back to every season page and update all of the tables. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You're saying that the current format could hinder the article's ability to reach GA status, when this is the format that the table was changed to which helped two season articles reach GA status? It doesn't need to change – heaping the references into one column makes it even less clear what sources what. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I would say its more clear than you think, if they are kept in order one of the numbers is for the coach and one is for the leadership group. ALSO if you hover over it it shows which source it is, plus as I said before it looks more cleaner and the sources are actually more visible, we could also look at doing something in the references collumn like Coach: (Reference) Leadership Group (Reference). Also I am saying it looking messy could hinder its ability to reach GA status (Theres other things that might do this as well), which keep in mind the previous 2 season articles are only rated as B which is not GA Status from what I have read. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Since the fake finals round (Wildcard round) was added, for the ladder progression table (and actual ladder) should we add markers marking out the teams that play for wildcards. I was thinking we should have 7-10 as a different colour on the ladder progression table and have 2-6 as the normal yellow colour like what happens here. For the ladder 1-6 can be green (Like it should be anyway) and 7-10 can be yellow. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

No – wildcard round is simply an extra week of finals, and it is now a final ten; we don't (and never did) need different colours. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with 4TheWynne at this stage. Although I have seen some sources showing 7–10 as a different colour or bracket, I think most refs and norms treat it being just another round of finals overall. That may change, but that should be the approach for now. Aspirex (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok Understood, wanted to know especially because there definitley are people (like myself) who dont consider it a real round of finals - This may definitley change in the future though Flipstatic Energy (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

By the way, another question. Given some fans already are talking about finals when it comes to finals after the wildcard matches, should we be waiting (after the first wildcard match) to update the elimination final the winner goes into until the second wildcard match is complete? Because it has been confirmed that 5th plays the lower placing winner while 6th players the higher placing winner. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)