Talk:Canadian Football League in the United States

"Modified" League Logo

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)

Mooted?

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)

Copyright violation

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)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:CFL Gold Miners.gif

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Unanimous agreement to move to Canadian Football League in the United States TDL (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

---

CFL USA → 1993-95 Canadian Football League expansion in the United States – "CFL USA" was never an official term for the expansion. Would propose either the officially proposed term, or "CFL Southern Division," or something along those lines. Knoper (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm agnostic. Your new title is more accurate but it loses pithiness. I do agree that "CFL USA" suggests a proper name even though it's not. Would oppose "CFL Southern Division"—doesn't properly encompass the topic.

I think we can use "CFL" rather than spelling out the whole league name. Dontreadalone (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• The proposed title doesn't score very high on conciseness and it's over-WP:PRECISE, though agree that the current title is not ideal. Dontreadalone is correct that "CFL Southern Division" doesn't encompass all of the content as not all of the US based teams played in the Southern Division.

What about the simpler "CFL in the United States"? TDL (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I support a move: "CFL USA" does not follow naming conventions, unless it were an official or commonly used name, which it's not. But I don't think we need the years in the new title: Canadian Football League expansion in the United States is sufficiently precise. If there is anything to say about expansion in other eras, it can be added to this article too. WP:ACRONYMTITLE seems to recommend against abbreviating to "CFL" in the title, since it could be misread as compact fluorescent light etc. But CFL expansion in the United States would be a useful redirect. Indefatigable (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think dropping the years is advisable. There are no other expansion eras to speak of precisely, but rumours and ideas surface from time-to-time (for instance) and it would make sense to keep them in the same place. Note that if, per TDL, we also drop the word "expansion" this could be broadened further to talk about the television penetration of the CFL and things like that; there's some interesting history on that. Would people support Canadian Football League in the United States or is that too broad? Dontreadalone (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. TDL (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I like it. That would make this article the perfect place for material about the CFL's ephemeral popularity in United States during that NFL strike/lockout years ago. Indefatigable (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good discussion, sorry I missed it, but the result is perfect. Would avoid adding the ephemeral proposals and Gadsden stuff, but adding some other items on US involvement is a good plan. Knoper (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ah, Knoper just turned up. It seems we have unanimity then. Two concrete things to add are neutral site games held in the U.S. prior to the expansion itself and an overview of television rights (particularly the '82 major foray). Ton of articles still list "CFL USA." Will pick through those tonight. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I created List of neutral site Canadian Football League games a while back, so I'd say it's probably not a good idea to WP:CFORK the list itself. But the subject is definitely worth a discuss here. TDL (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The move was fine, but don't remove maintenance templates and do adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. If fixed the former, but I'll let you fix the other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks boss. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Broader Focus?

I think it's going to be tough to really make this article broader than the 1993-95 expansion and keep content at an encyclopedic level...as most articles on the subject show, there was virtually no interest in the CFL during the NFL strike years, and even less otherwise. Any other expansion talk is really baseless, and US TV coverage is mainly covered in the league's article, and kind of clouds this article, which as a very distinctive 3 years in the league's history, should kind of get its own spot away from what cable coverage the league got in the USA during "normal" years.Knoper (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your point is a fair one and I was mulling it over even as suggesting this title. But the contrary point is: where should all the extra scraps go? I just added a table, for instance, based on a great list from User:Danlaycock found here. At least a couple of paragraphs can be added to that for background. Similarly, the CFL hasn't set any records on American TV but a focused section on that history ought to be documented somewhere.

So I don't know. "A very distinctive 3 years in the league's history" as a single article is totally a good argument. But preserving this extra info is also important.

There were four of us that commented so maybe we'll get a couple of other opinions. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say to answer one of your points a "Canadian Football League on television" page or something to that effect to take the load off of the main CFL page, which seems a bit overburdened with the mountain of details, and include the US coverage there with a link here. With regard to the neutral site games, maybe a mention at the start and then the table at the end (I find tables kinda kill any momentum the page has). To be clear, I'm with you in seeing what others think of this. Knoper (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Canadian Football League on television" - look what I just found: Category:Canadian Football League on television. Maybe the thing to do is move CFL on NBC to a broader title so that it can cover the entire history of US TV, or perhaps merge all of the CFL on XXX into a single article on CFL TV. Then this article could be restricted to CFL GAMES in the US. TDL (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good show, TDL. I'd go with the latter, but either is great. Knoper (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, television out but leave neutral site games in. I assume this title is still good to go? Moving the CFL on NBC to Canadian Football League on American television is worth considering. Also agree that some merging could be in order. (One band-aid for now would be to create Canadian Football League on television as a disambig.)

That said, let's perhaps do one thing at a time. This article needs some sourcing; who wants to buy the Willes book :)? Dontreadalone (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I found some interesting excerpts: [1], [2], [3]. TDL (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I ordered the book today, will add some cites once I read it. Knoper (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What to add?

Before we go hunting for sources, what should we add to the article? There seems to be plenty of info on the Stallions, my idea would be to have blurbs about the size of the Stallions for each team, and then spill any additional research to the team pages. Birmingham, Memphis, Shreveport and San Antonio would be the focuses I'd suggest. Knoper (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in reading it over I think the article does a good job of sprinkling references to all the teams through the year-by-year sections. I think every team has at least a couple of sentences. (I think San Antonio gets the most abbreviated mention.) It's natural that Baltimore has a bit more because they were the only successful franchise.

What are you imagining for these blurbs? A new section with headings for each team or just lengthening what's already in there? Dontreadalone (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking we keep going without new headings, maybe add another for Shreveport and Sacramento in 95 and 94, respectively. Might focus discussion of field size to one paragraph, or even just add it to the bottom table in place of QB or k/p. My concern would be adding more "on the field" detail. Good job getting the "unbearably" btw, forgot that one on my most recent sweep. Knoper (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so basically each team active in each year deserves it's own little blurb. That makes sense. I just added a couple of sentences for the Texans in 1995. Interesting that Fred Anderson (owner of the Goldminers and then the Texans) basically clung on from beginning to end to his franchise. I'm going to try to give him a proper blue link.

Kudos on buying the book, BTW. I'm down a few dollars after working on the Argos article, so am stretching out my purchases. Definitely plan to buy it though. Dontreadalone (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Interleague games

What do people think about adding a list of CFL-NFL interleague games here? Technically, none of them were played IN the United States, but they seem to be somewhat relevant to the subject. TDL (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Another great list! I was thinking of a mentioning this (I've only read about the games circa 1959-1961) but would actually oppose fully copying the Canadian entries on the list over. I think we need to keep a focus on Canadian rules games played on American soil for this article. It does make me wonder if some parent article on Can-Am football interaction would be in order...

Also, National Football League in Toronto would be a good target for your list. Sure, at a glance, a lot of those interleague games were played in Montreal but I think it would be easily workable. Happy to help. Dontreadalone (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was basically my thoughts as well, but thought I'd throw it out there to see what others thought. TDL (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)r

Map

Might help if we could put the old line franchises in as well, just to help readers who might not know all the CFL teams. Knoper (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've mocked up my sandbox to show what that would look like. I think it's helpful but I also like how Dan just zoomed the map in on the United States alone, so I could go either way.

Other opinions? Dontreadalone (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not that up on using maps, would we be able to do something like the one on the National Hockey League page? Knoper (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I pinged TDL as I think he knows maps. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, anything is possible! Basically there are two options here: a) create a new svg image (like on the NHL page); b) use a Template:Locator map (which is what we are doing now). The benefit of the latter is that they are easy to modify from an end users prospective. Want to add a new team? Just plug in the latitude and longitude. Don't like the colours? Just change what marker is used. Plus it is easy to add wikilinks and such on top of the image. The draw back is that these templates are complicated to make (I've never made one myself, and they're probably beyond my abilities) and there are only a few available. (I looked and nothing useful for this purpose beyond the USA/North America ones.) Option a) is more straightforward, but then everything is locked in and needs to be changed directly in the svg. I should be able to throw a svg together, either based on the NHL map or File:BlankMap-USA-states-Canada-provinces, HI closer.svg, if that's what people want. Otherwise, someone at the WP:GL might be able to create a new locator map for Canada/USA. TDL (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, here is my work in progress: File:CFL teams.svg. TDL (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice! I'm dummy enough that I don't even know how you've done this much. You'll have to point me to a tutorial somewhere. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

svg's are written in a markup language similar to HTML or wiki. If you download the svg and open it in a text editor you'll see all kinds of tags detailing where to draw lines and what colour to make them. So in principal all you need to know is how all of these tags work: [4]. Of course it gets complicated when you need thousands of lines to draw Canada's arctic coast! TDL (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The map is now complete. Use it wisely! I'd suggest making an Template:Annotated image with wikilinks to the team articles. TDL (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Dan. Figuring out how to work that sounds like an adventure for another evening. On a related note, can anyone think of other logical images for this? I can probably add other stadiums but that will get sort of dull. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wish we could post a screencap of the Memphis field...it was a cosmetic disaster of epic proportions. Knoper (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(o/d) What happened to the map? It was nicely done up with all the American locations and has now reverted to Canada only. Dontreadalone (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Something to do with the template Dan inserted. I have reverted to previous. Dontreadalone (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I figured I'd get some bonus usage of the new map on Canadian Football League, but was reverted here. I've started a discussion at Talk:Canadian_Football_League#New_map for anyone who is interested. TDL (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote

Great adds, my issue with the block quote: I think it a)gives undue prominence to one viewpoint b) It sounds defensive if you put it right at the beginning and c)It could probably be effectively placed in the article. Knoper (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

These are fair points. I liked it as a nice dramatization of the situation but can see that it would be better worked in. Give me some time. Dontreadalone (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that it would fit better in the Aftermath section since it is kind of a postmortem on the whole process. Using it at the very start is confusing because readers won't yet understand WHY there was such criticism of Smith and the project. TDL (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, DRA, everyone on this page is doing great work. It's 10x better than it was last week. Knoper (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Knoper. Yes Dan, I agree Aftermath would make sense for the bit I added but I also think there's some logic to having it flow after first bringing up the ownership personalities.

Speaking of the Aftermath, I was looking at it thinking its trying to wear two hats: the immediate fallout from the expansion and then a long term survey of the CFL since that time. Perhaps two sections, "Immediate aftermath" and "Long term legacy", or is that too much? One other thought is having three basic sections over-all: Pre-expansion, Expansion, Post-expansion. As appropriate, some of the aftermath stuff could be shuffled to the last of these. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion would be that it's a a decent balance to show the crisis before and after the expansion was dealt with without extreme measures. I do see your point: I remember from my experience under another name that these sections can become horribly bloated if not properly trimmed.Knoper (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

You've lost me. What infoboxes, where? Dontreadalone (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Shreveport Pirates

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)

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)

Editing idea du jour

I was thinking of moving the 1994-1995 offseason stuff (which isn't actually about that offseason) to a new sub-section of "Termination" called "League troubles" or something similar. What's there now would be sub-sectioned as "Last moves" or "Final act" etc.

The idea is to have a single dedicated section where the issues surrounding the league—rules, field, names, attendance—can be concisely summarized. It makes sense to have this immediately before the actual termination info. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

a) When I was playing around with this earlier, the intention was to move all the "this team moves, this team added" to one section, and for narrative purpose to show "It was good one place, OK two more, dead another; here's what happened next," along with some analysis. I'm ambivalent either way.

Other tidbits:

b) -Calgary threatened to move to San Antonio after '94 according to some of our sources, and the TigerCats were given an ultimatum to sell 12,500 season tickets, I don't know for sure whether it would have meant deactivation or moving, their team site said deactivation, but my understanding was they'd move the team.

c) -Williams/B'ham is tough to say he announced he wasn't playing anymore, because one of the sources describe him as open to moving the US teams to a spring schedule/massive rule changes.

d) -The rules were a major sticking point; CFL position was understandably "they've worked for us and our fans like them", US owners were understandably "It takes a manual to understand them, and we need casual fans." Also, the fight over quotas was pretty intense, one source (Sports Illustrated) noted there was an in-principle agreement to lower it to 10 on the Canadian teams.

e) -XFL at the end: should we mention LV, B'ham and Memphis all played in the same stadium in that league?

Knoper (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but for clarity's sake I added letters to your points. To address them:

a) I think if you say "X relocated to Y" it makes sense in the same breath to say what was good and bad and why things happened the way they did. Thus I don't see separately compartmentalizing the two points. That said, the article as it stands is not continuous in its treatment of the teams as they're mentioned separately in 1994, 1995, and again in Termination. One option—that would require some work—is to divide this into team sections rather than years. Would you prefer that?

b) I'm totally open to you readding the points about Calgary and Hamilton with sources. I had stumbled across some suggestions of Calgary moving in the 94/95 offseason last night. Do note the sentence I removed said they'd be forced to relocate. That's quite a claim.

c) Assuming we're talking about this: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19951107&id=KrwfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FNgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4898,678628. Note it says a new spring league. That is, Williams was out of the CFL but musing about an entirely new venture.

d) Agree, rules are major. Need some more info. Also the issue of changing the league's name, which is a heart and soul consideration. Do you feel the "League troubles" section is sufficient for this or should we break it out more completely?

e) Sure. Interesting tidbit! Dontreadalone (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, just shotgunning random thoughts on the article. Knoper (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know this has been something of a moving target but I'm thinking tonight it's very close to done, so that's the good news. A few stray sentences to source and maybe some better focus and analysis in the aftermath section but otherwise I like it. In fact, I think this could be a GA. Please do give it a go over. Dontreadalone (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Date format

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)

More Random Thoughts

Again, just throwing it out front so we're not talking in summaries:

-Our Sports Central has been wrong on a few items, so we should probably not have them as a source.

-The constant mentions of whether an attendance was average/not average gets tiresome on a long read. (I'm a culprit in this, I know). Should we present a table at some point featuring Canadian average/American average/ etc. and allow the reader to make up their mind?

-On a more general note with sources, have been through about 2/3 of Willes' book, and while enjoyable and well researched, I find it tends toward being a bit easy on Smith and the expansion itself, which Smith admits should have been a far more careful process.

-Willing to hear otherwise, but "League Troubles", to me, still belongs with the 94/95 offseason. All the issues mentioned fit there. Knoper (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

-I have removed it.

-Do you want to cut all specific attendance figures and just have them in a table? This may go too far in the opposite direction. However, we could still build a table and then trim what seems unnecessary in the body.

-The trouble with Willes' book is that it's largely anecdotal. The coverage is spotty depending on whether he had someone talking to him on a given subject. There were also surprising gaps—nothing on ESPN and nothing on the lack of (marketing), for instance. Do you think we are being easy on Smith and the expansion itself?

-I found the juxtaposition odd in the Offseason section before. We were focused on the details of team movements and results and then it jumped to a couple of meta paragraphs about what was wrong with the league. I don't really mind though. Note, if you scrap League troubles, some of it will have to still be incorporated in Termination as it only makes sense after '95.

-Regarding Carling O'Keefe, it can arguably be reduced to one sentence but is important enough to leave in. It was the biggest league wide development of the decade preceding the American expansion. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point on league troubles and Carling O'Keefe. With a table, I would think something like having each US team for that year, with the average Canadian figure as a comparitor. Knoper (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha my apologies on Carling, my removal was accidental there. Was wondering why you mentioned that. Knoper (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added two charts for 94 and 95 attendance. I pruned the body somewhat of redundant attendance numbers. I don't think it's really possible or desirable to completely eliminate the discussion of attendance when describing the teams as it's so integral to their stories. Anyway, hope this helps. I'm really pleased with the way pics/charts/maps now break up the big blocks of text. It's looking respectable. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

GA

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)

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)

Woot! It's passed. Kudos everyone. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good job! TDL (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Analysis

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canadian Football League in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 20:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I did some research into this expansion years ago for school (albeit not anywhere near this depth), so I'll bite at this review. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you cannot have two sections named References. Please try and find a combo, there's a variety of duos for sections like these.

Please deal with the citation need tag, which has been there since sometime last month.

Foundered is used correctly in the article, but it's much less common that floundered. I was frankly confused both times you used it, and I had to check a dictionary to make sure it wasn't a typo. Would you consider switching to floundered, or perhaps even a third word altogether? In all fairness, the two words are nearly tied in Google News results for Canada, but I just keep thinking it's something about the founder of the teams, or something.

Pictures check out.

Neutral site games

• "there would not be another meaningful CFL game in the United States": were there any meaningless games between 1967 and 1992?

Background

• Cleanup ref 27
• This reference has two outlet names... is one syndicating the other's article? "^ Hickey, Pat (November 11, 1987). "CFL May Be Beyond Rescuing". Montreal Gazette. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved January 2, 2014."

1992–1993

• Ref 38: Cleanup

1994

• Ref 45: cleanup
• Ref 46: Date of publication?

End game

• Ref 45: please fill out this reference with more than its title

Aftermath

• Ref 107: The court that ASC vs. Ryckman was tried in should be listed in the reference.
• While it's reasonably clear that this section's reference to a Smith is Larry Smith, please clarify, as this is the first Smith reference for a while
• Ref 111: "CANOE - SLAM! Sports - Wrestling - Wrestlemania 23 : Vince McMahon Q&A" --> "Wrestlemania 23 : Vince McMahon Q&A"; date, author?
• Ref 112, 113: The Globe and Maile?
• Jim Popp has remained GM of Montreal since the move from the US. Thing is, what if he retires tomorrow, and you aren't around to update the article. Perhaps, "As of 2014," he remains in the post, something along that line?

List of American CFL teams

• Bobcat Stadium has a superscript 1 after it. There's no note below the table-- what does the number refer to?

Post-expansion American media

• Ref 116 links to the same CBC article as ref 115.
• Ref 117: What date was this published?

More to come, but that's the majority of the article reviewed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All done except for one: in ref 30 the Tribune is reprinting the Montreal Gazette. What's the correct syntax to use in the ref such cases? Dontreadalone (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything on this issue, to weigh one way or another, so I'll let it go. Before submitting this article for FA, I'd suggest asking the question on the Help desk.

Anyway, checked the remaining bit of article that I hadn't in the first go round, and it's good, so congrats, GA! -- Zanimum (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Focus Issues

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)

Writing Quality

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Canadian Football League in the United States/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Start by length/quality. TFCforever (talk)

Substituted at 05:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Teams that did not play

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)kav2001c

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)