Talk:United Football League (2009–2012)

Deletion of External Links

Please do not delete any external links for United Football League (2008) with out explaining your reasons on this talk page. If this edit happens again it will considered vandalism and you'll be blocked from editing. Standleylake40 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From your user page: "Standleylake40 is a member of UFLaccess.com and can't wait for the UFL". See WP:COI, I think that is a good enough reason. UFL Access is just a blog/fan site and doesn't conform to either WP:RS or WP:EL. Thanks. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your continued effort to CENSOR this page and wikipedia will be considered vandalism. The overall consensus is that the External Link in question is a relevent link and therefore should remain. If your edits are reverted more than 3 times you should accept it and move on. And if this link is agianst wikipedia policy then maybe the policy should be looked at. Standleylake40 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to get involved, but such a link is not appropriate and even if were, it would not be appropriate of a member of the site to add it due to risk of conflict of interest (Wikipedia has a clearly defined policy on this). There does not seem to be consensus at all, the only dissenting voice appears to be Standleylake40, and it is not censorship to remove something that is not appropriate or does not conform to clearly defined rules. Standleylake40, your work on the article is appreciated, but you should steer clear of adding anything related to UFL Access, or sourced exclusively from it, due to your involvement as it is only natural that you will have some bias in favor of it. You should find reliable third-party links/references from established news organizations, magazines, books, etc. Rameses The Ram (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before the Wikipedia Policy should be changed to allow "CREDIBLE" third-party fan news websites and blogs. News that was broken on UFLaccess.com have been sited by ESPN(and disscussed on several ESPN news programs), and confirmed by Bloomberg(twice). Jim Fassel has been confirmed by numrous sources as well as UFLaccess.com. UFLaccess.com doesn't require a membership to view news material and forums. Also i am not the only one that has reverted this more than once. I'm just saying that I will continue to revert whoever deletes this link. Standleylake40 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy exists => Link is spam. You have to abide by policy whether you like it or not. You are the vandal here. --Dave (32.134.1.196 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

UFLA has been referenced in this article several times, and has been sourced by the official league website and ESPN. It doesn't require a membership to view. I don't understand why this would't be considered a reliable source. I'm not promoting the site, it is the only website that is indepentdent of the league that provides News about the Leauge. Standleylake40 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

STOP

Okay, IP guy and Standleylake40: Read WP:3RR and stop reverting each other. Of course, this hasn't taken place 3 times in 24 hours, but it is still edit warring and is a blockable offense (no matter who's right). Killiondude (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'll stop I have tried to mediate the situation several different ways, but it has still continued. The link is a reliable source. Plus lots of other articles have blogs on them. Standleylake40 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So I looked up policy for this specific link. According to UFL Access's "About" page, they are not the "official" website for the UFL, and the site is pretty much a blog. I think this falls under #11 of WP:ELNO. That being said, it should not be added to the article unless you can prove that Billy Kirk meets notability requirements and is therefore a "recognized authority". As much as I agree that this external link might be useful to readers, policy says we shouldn't add it (unless it meets the exception I already mentioned). Killiondude (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but what can do? Standleylake40 has just added the link again and now I can't remove it even though it shouldn't be there. He/she is just flagrantly disregarding the external link policy. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He didn't add it the last time, another user reverted it. Anyways, I just took it down. Killiondude (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Anon and Stanleylake40, why not look for good links with the reputation of something like ESPN or SI instead of edit warring over this. Killiondude seems correct when he says that it falls under #11 of the EL policy. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to look into this on my talk page, and I must agree with Killiondude's statement that this meets WP:ELNO #11. With the exception of these sorts of blogs being recognised by a recognised authority, they should not be added. This particular website is a totally unofficial site, and we have no reason to believe it's fact-checked or reliable. Therefore I agree with the removal. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

United Football League (2008) vs. just United Football League

NO more need to have a year designation in article title. Cant change it though. Standleylake40 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should post a request asking if that's okay on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Killiondude (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wait until the league has become established. At present, the 1960's league has played four full seasons more than this league. Also check out WP:RECENT. Hippopotamus (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons in Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines Why UFLaccess.com is a merited source and external link

• Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
• Wikipedia:Use common sense
• Wikipedia:Be bold
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Gaming the system
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Consensus

Standleylake40 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be just linking any policy that comes to mind. There is already consensus that this breaks policy according to WP:ELNO. I would also very strongly caution you against reverting things (especially the same day your block for edit waring was lifted). Killiondude (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Killiondude. In addition, you broke a link to a reliable source in your last edit. 71.70.143.158 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

According to user Standleylake40 profile they are a user of UFLAccess.com and is not an impartial judge of what sites should be on the External links list. Therer are other other UFL resource sites that are just as good or even better in some ways than UFLAccess.com such as UFLFansite.com or TuskerHouse.com. User Standleylake40 does not seem to be impartial enough to make a decision as to which site(s) should be on the External Links list. In the meanwhile no sites should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.150.68 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of UFL

I reverted the movement of the UFL disambiguation page since WP:DAB says the following with regard to a primary topic:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.

At present, the United Football League (2009) is no more popular than most of the uses of "UFL", and in fact the University of Florida would hold greatest claim to have a redirect from "UFL". Indeed, the University of Florida is the top two hits in Google for "UFL" and most of the first page, at least where I'm located (which isn't Florida).

This may change in future, of course, but I imagine the league will at least have to have played some games and have more media coverage to achieve that sort of recognition from the general public. Hippopotamus (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars (again)

Okay you guys. This edit warring has to stop: adding and removing the word "major" from the first sentence. I'm pretty sure the 3RR has been broken due to this. Regardless of that, it is still edit warring and it is still a blockable offense. Bring the discussion here, do not change the page again about describing it as "major" league or not, otherwise I feel like an admin should be made aware of the offense(s). Killiondude (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "Major" was in the first sentence for over a month and no one complained about it being there. It has also been in the "Major" section of the "Gridiron Football" template for quite a long time. I agree that an administrator needs to come in and review this entire article and decide what does need to be here and what doesn't belong on this article. This is why we need Flagged Revisions, so that people don't make stupid or unnecessary edits, and instead we can have a qualified third party person decide what needs to be here or not. Standleylake40 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what Flagged Revisions is geared for... Killiondude (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Most biased article on Wikipedia

This is the most one-sided biased article on Wikipidia. Most of the info is outdated or incorrect and it seems like the neutrality of this article can be questioned. Most of the refernces are coming from extremely uniformed people. Just because ESPN says it doesn't make it true. 198.243.2.61 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Team Colors

Can somebody tell me who chose the colors for the UFL teams? Nothing has been reported for team colors,logos,jerseys, etc., and it puzzles me as to why the UFL colors aren't just neutral, instead of random colors. 67.175.158.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

What are you referring to? Pats1 ^T/C 23:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Losman

Why is the color on the template black? The UFL hasn't disclosed anything about team colors yet. 67.175.158.28 (talk)

Because black and white are as neutral of colors as you can get... Pats1 ^T/C 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Affliation with NFL

I dont think there should be any mention to competition with the NFL in the article. What does everyone else think? 172.192.96.207 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a legitimate thing to mention, as a reader unfamiliar with the league would want to know about the UFL's relationship to the NFL. The cited sources cover the range of discussion on the future nature of that relationship, which has yet to become firm one way or the other. It's clear to me from what I've read that, while the UFL is independant, few are looking at it as another major league, at least at this juncture. Discussion of how it may evolve is a key point that the article, in order to be complete, should cover. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Paul Tagliabue?

Is there any reason to mention that one of the league's major investors was a collegiate roomate of Paul Tagliabue? As far as I know, Taliabue has no involvement with the league (correct me if I'm wrong) and a college roomate from decades ago hardly seems to be a relevant connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.32.57 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed.oknazevad (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with the NFL section

I moved this material into its own section and out of the intro in order to comply with WP:LEAD, which calls for the lead of an article to a)briefly introduce the subject and b)give a quick summary of the article. When the UFL-NFL material was consolidated by Pats1, it struck me that it did neither of the things a lead should do, as it didn't introduce the subject, nor was it a brief summary of a section in the article. In fact, it was the article's entire material on the topic.

Now, I just placed it at the end because I couldn't think of where else to put it. If anyone else has a better idea of where in the article it should go, go ahead and move it. oknazevad (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. My fix was a quick one; for some reason those NFL nuggets were mixed in with the team announcements. Pats1 ^T/C 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name of the section, as the UFL has no relationship with the NFL. 172.190.228.88 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NEVER, under any circumstances change what someone else has written on a talk page (including section headers)! It's simply dishonest, blatanly rude, and a gross violation wiki etiquette.

As for the section in the article, it entirely talks about the league in comparison to the NFL, including there intention to compete with them, or utter lack thereof, as they've mentioned on multiple occassions. All of which could be described using the word "relationship". The use of that does NOT mean that there is a formal affiliation or tie.

As a comparison, you and I have written to each other via a wikipedia talk page. That constitutes a relationship, despite not only having no formal familial ties (as far as I know), but never actually having met before (again, as far as I know). Though, based on your behaviour here, it's getting off to a rocky start.

So, in short, using "relationship" in the section header does not imply that there's a formal tie between the two leagues (and the text makes it clear that there's no formal affiliation). The use of the NFL name in the section header helps draw attention to the section, which covers an aspect of the league that an unfamiliar reader would want to know. The section barely even covers the quality of play, making the current header grossly inaccurate. And, finally, your pattern of editing shows to me a desire to push a POV that the UFL is a serious competitor to the NFL, when the league officials themselves don't describe it that way. Therefore, I'm changing the section header back. oknazevad (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with everything you just said. Under your definition of "Relationship" there hasnt been any formal or informal contact between the two leagues, therefore there is NO relationship. I have changed the section header to "Competition to the NFL". If you can come up with a better header, please feel free to change it. Also the "relationship to the NFL" header gives unimformed readers the false implication that the UFL is the NFL's D-league or a minor league to the NFL, which it is not. And as for us getting off on a rocky start, even if i am a "newb" or whatever to Wikipedia, I have as much of a right to state my opinion as you or anyone does. Standleylake40 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off too strong there. I wasn't saying you can't state your opinion, just that you shouldn't change mine, which is what you inadvertantly did when you changed the heading of this talk page section.

That said, I disagree that the use of "relationship" implies formal ties. It does not imply that they are under the NFL. In fact, the word has a neutral connotation, which is appropriate for wikipedia. It just says that the section discusses how the leagues interact.

And there has been such interaction, even if informal. My source for that is UFL Commisioner Huyghue himself. During both of this week's gamecasts he was interviewed. In an interview for the NY-FLA pregame show he described the UFL as having a "cordial relationship" with the NFL. Those were his exact words, including the very word "relationship". Therefore, I believe it's entirely appropriate to use the word in the section header.

I also believe that the use of "competition" has a specific connotation that implies the UFL is somehow trying to be even, if not attempting to surpass the NFL. Not only does that promote a POV about the league, which is inappropriate considering the fairly balanced material in the section, but is pretty factually incorrect. UFL execs themselves have described the purpose of the league, from a players standpoint, as being a path back to the NFL, which is evidenced by the ability of UFL palyers to sign with NFL teams later in the season. The league is intended by it's founders to be complimentary, not as a competitor in the sense the AFL was in the 60s. I believe very strongly that the wikipedia article should reflect and report this role. Therefore "competition is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "Comparisions with the NFL". I still think "relationship" gives the conitation that there is an official realationship between the two. This new title simply compares the two leagues. I also think "relationship" gives the POV that the UFL is bent on becoming the NFL's minor league. Standleylake40 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good choice. Neutral in tone, and open to multiple interpretations. Actually, with that as a section header, we can rearrange the article to make the rules differences a subsection of the "Comparison" section, as that'd be part of a comparison. Yea! Wiki-colabortlation works!oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

UFL is a major league

Please someone explain to me why the UFL isnt a major league, while the XFL was clearly not a Major league, yet it is portrayed as such. Standleylake40 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)