Talk:Canadian Football League in the United States

message: The CFL and its teams never used the so-called modified league logo in any official capacity, if at all. I have a number of league and club publications from this era, and in none of them does this logo appear. In fact, the only place that I saw it prior to its inclusion on this page was on a "CFL in the USA" tribute site that began operating sometime in the late 1990s. 
Unless someone can confirm the logo's use, the statement suggesting that it was used by the league or its clubs should be removed. --Walby2 20:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modified" League Logo 

message: Maybe this is a Canadian-American difference, but the word "mooted" in the phrase "For the past year, the Glieberman family (owners of the now-suspended Ottawa Renegades) have mooted plans to put a franchise in Windsor." is weird to me - does it mean they tried to stop a team moving to Windsor? --Awiseman 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mooted? 

message: Virtually the entire article was a carbon copy of this Web site:  http://www.oursportscentral.com/cflinamerica/history.php
This was up for almost a year--how in the world was it not caught sooner?  Blueboy96 06:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is not -- it may be the principal source of the article, but it is not the only one (portions of the 1994 CFL yearbook were also used as sources). kelvSYC 05:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But wouldn't it be better (write I, a complete non-fan who's always been mildly curious about this, six years later) to give a token footnote, or at least list the principal sources at the end? I wondered in reading this interesting article why it was seemed to be unreferenced Original Research or opinion (especially the phrases about [presumably although not explicitly, Canadian] consternation at a U.S. team winning the Grey Cup). —— Shakescene (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: :Image:CFL Gold Miners.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 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CFL Gold Miners.gif

message: Just looking at the infobox's sections for QB and K/P...should we put all the field modifications for each franchise there instead of the position players, which did change from time to time? Knoper (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You've lost me. What infoboxes, where? Dontreadalone (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

text: A shit, I gotcha now. And yes, I agree. The QB K/P is relevant to the team sub-articles. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Yes, I know Wiki is not a chatroom, but this is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ojFvsRh6M&feature=channel_page
Who said the expansion was a failure? Dontreadalone (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Walk of Life actually makes a half decent country song, who knew?   This one is kind of fun as well, with Oakes dancing around the injunction (start at 1:40) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR1wBCj2pMo Knoper (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Shreveport Pirates

message: Note I've standardized the dates on this to February 4, 2014 rather than 4 February 2014. Our newspaper sources use it and it's standard in North America so I think it preferable. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: I think I'm going to nominate this for GA. It's complete and it's now been stable for a week.
Knoper, you did have a couple of last points. Is there anything you're concerned about that you think is an absolute must do? Dontreadalone (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think this is great.  Some pics would be nice, but I know we've all tried on that front.  Great work everyone. Knoper (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Woot! It's passed. Kudos everyone. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good job!  TDL (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: Should we add an analysis of why it failed?  Not academic paper sense, but kind of one kind of outline of reasons:
- Trouble with the rules, can be supported by plenty of the owner quotes.
- Structural issues with expansion (too quickly, not enough checking of ownership groups, no discernible long term plan, there's a quote from Smith that each team should have been added like Sacramento was)
- Perception of CFL as "minor league" meaning that there was no real community support (Can be supported by quotes, one of the sources we have have the Oakland county commissioner comparing the league to roller hockey and tractor pulls)
Or are we getting too far into OR?  Knoper (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be OR (as long as we don't actually title it "analysis"). If you want to work something up I wouldn't be opposed to including it. I'd suggest the first two paragraphs of League troubles could form the basis of a new section. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: Revisiting this, still great, just wanted to justify a few reverts I made.
CFL articles tend to attract interest from those who traditionally don't watch the league.  That's a good thing.  However, this means that a lot of edits provided tend to focus on either the NFL, on esoteric bits of info that didn't affect anything but appear "fun" to outsiders, or on hypothetical that never had a chance of happening(see: Atlantic Schooners).
Any article on the CFL, especially one that touches on the league as a whole, should focus on what actually happened.  After that, it should touch on immediate and relevant consequences of what happened.  Going beyond that is going beyond the scope of the article and is doing a disservice to the league.  My trimming isn't to be unkind, it's to allow people who want to read about this to do so without feeding a lot of items that didn't have any hope of happening, or don't really fit with the article's subject.  Knoper (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus Issues 

message: This is incredibly well-written for a Wikipedia article, bravo to the author (probably the Willes who wrote the book on the subject?). A thoroughly good article by someone with natural talent.
: Oh behalf of my share, thanks for the compliment, although, even better, this was actually a collaboration between a few users.  It was a fun project.Knoper (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the collaborators on the GA push and absolutely agree we had a lot of fun and did a bang-up job giving a good overview of an interesting story. Glad to see new readers agree. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Quality 

message: Substituted at 05:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This is a very contentious issue for this segment imo. Not only did the CFL seemingly randomly post maps and expansion plans for cities all over the US multiple times, but add to this the confusion of nearly every existing US team attempting to relocate. As an example both the original San Antonio franchise (not relocated Sacremento) and the Orlando franchise were more "real" than some of the teams listed on the page already (such as Miami) but I feel like a blanket list of cities / teams / owners would be far too long and speculative to have any real merit. Kav2001c (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Teams that did not play

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Canadian Football League in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201195728/http://cfl.ca/page/his_timeline_1900 to http://cfl.ca/page/his_timeline_1900
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140304042350/http://www.americaone.com/shows/CFL/CFL%20Photos/2009_Schedule.htm to http://www.americaone.com/shows/CFL/CFL%20Photos/2009_Schedule.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222172404/http://fangsbites.com/2012/07/cfl-finally-has-a-us-tv-contract-games-air-on-nbc-sports-network/ to http://fangsbites.com/2012/07/cfl-finally-has-a-us-tv-contract-games-air-on-nbc-sports-network/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified