Talk:1995 Rugby World Cup final

Rugby union Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Africa Low‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template

Does anyone have the info to put into these tables...? (using the 2007 final as a template) - Sahmejil (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of Article Slanted

The textual part of the is 2029 words The poisoning controversy is 1284 words So the rest is only 745 words

Even the poisoning stuff is allegations and supposition People got sick yes.

BUT should 63% of the article be about the poisoning?

Suggest we increase the main part and decrease the poisoning allegations?

Biscuit1018 (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the poisoning allegations and controversy should not be so long, but it deserves at least a mention. It appears to have been removed completely now, in what appears to be vandalism by 103.60.107.125 on 19 October 2017‎. I think a shortened edit of what was removed then should be reinstated.

Munguz 14:10 06 April 2019_(UTC)

Match details

Man of the Match:
? ? (?)

Touch judges:
? ? (?)
? ? (? )
Television match official:
? ? (??)
Fourth official:
? ? (?)
Fifth official and reserve referee:
? ? (?)

Statistics

	New Zealand	South Africa
Tries	0	0
Conversions	0	0
Penalties (attempts)	0/0	0/0
Drop goals (attempts)	0/0	0/0
Scrums (won/lost)	0/0	0/0
Line-outs (won/lost)	00/0	00/0
Turnovers	0	0
Tackles (made/attempts)	00/00	00/00
Line breaks	0	0
Possession	00%	00%
Territory	00%	00%
Time in opp. 00	0' 00"	0' 00"
Errors (hands/kicks/restart)	00 (00/0/0)	0 (0/0/0)
Possession kicked (in play/touch/errors)	00 (00/00/0)	00 (00/00/0)
Pens conceded	0	0
Replacements	0	0
Yellow cards	0	0
Red cards	0	0

Invictus

A Movie based on the political influence this had in South Africa's reform post-Apartheid. Does it deserve mention? hewhoamareismyself 02:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, it deserves to be mentioned. Just a one line somewhere near the end of the article.MilkStraw532 (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

60% of this article relates to the "apparent" poisoning of the All Blacks and absolutely nothing around the significance of post apardheid South Africa, etc. Appears there is way too much bias for my liking. Poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.160.43 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct English?

What happened after the match would go onto become an iconic moment in the history of sport.

Though English not being my native language, this sentence somehow sounds wrong to me. My feeling says become should be becoming. Can someone confirm? Upquark (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that would be grammatically correct, but it wouldn't make sense. There was simply a space missing, which I have now added. The phraseme [...] would go on to become [...] is a typical stock phrase popular in the press. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane low flyover

Just wondering if there's a reason there is no mention of the flyover before the match began. It's a very significant moment of the event with no one expecting it, and it is remembered today with similar flyovers in commemorations. Should there be some information regarding this? TGB13 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TGB13: - I don't think there's any specific reason why it's not mentioned. I don't know if it's really "very significant", but it's definitely worth a mention in my opinion. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]