This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Various sections in this article may refer to either a team's total National Football League championships, or their total Super Bowl championships. Please remember that these values are different because the NFL's first season was held in 1920, several decades before Super Bowl I was played at the end of the 1966 regular season. Thank you.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL 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.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject American Football League, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.American Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject American Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject American Football LeagueAmerican Football League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football 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.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics 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.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
@Toa Nidhiki05: I'm asking the question again with no agenda or assumption or aggression: did you read the pages that I directed you to in my edit summary or not? As for BRD, we are required to have these accessibility features on every data table. I'm not required to get consensus for adding them to the literal millions of tables on Wikiepdia on a case-by-case basis: they all need them. Why would you remove the row scopes? How is that as accessible as before? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the pages before, dude. I literally said I was making edits to address your concerns. I am not sure why you are so caught up on accusing me of not reading pages. My entire complaint is that your edit created a gigantic ugly, colored "League" column at the end of the table that looks terrible. I don't have any issue with accessibility, but I have issue with you adding a gigantic ugly column on an already bloated table. That's why I tried to find a better solution, which you immediately reverted while claiming BRD (when you were the initial editor). If you don't want your edit changed in any way, just say it so I can stop wasting my time trying to fix the aesthetic problem. ToaNidhiki05 14:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of not having read them. I am now asking why since you knew that all tables need these features, you removed them. How is that a good thing? Also, please don't make aggressive bad faith assumptions that I "don't want your edit changed in any way". I disagree that there is an aesthetic problem in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered this. Can you answer my question - are you open to any edit that doesn't keep 100% of what you changed to the table formatting? Because it seems like you are extremely committed to it looking like this forever and are willing to edit war over it. ToaNidhiki05 15:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered the question: "How is removing accessibility features a good thing?" As I just tacitly answered, of course I am, but edits should have proper semantics, e.g. for things like definition lists. So now that I have answered your question, please answer my questions that you have not answered. Once again: "Why would you remove the row scopes? How is that as accessible as before?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a definition list. It's at the bottom of the table, and it has been there for years. All you did was add a second, redundant list that looks poorly formatted. If the table looks like this, would you not revert it? ToaNidhiki05 15:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer my questions and it is not a definition list. Look at the HTML in your edit: does it have a dt tag? Please answer this question and my former ones which you have not answered. I answer your questions, so I'm hopeful you will answer in good faith and not insert things into tables that are non-tabular data. It is not appropriate to add a row that includes miscellaneous information that is not the scope of the table: that is why key/item pairs for definition lists exist in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be an appropriate substitute for you key, or do you demand the unformatted key stay as well? ToaNidhiki05 15:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have (objectively) again ignored my questions and (subjectively, based on my perspective of the function of a table) again abused a table for non-tabular data. This is why key/item pairs for definition lists exist in the first place. This would certainly be much better and semantically much more meaningful than making a row of random information. Still waiting for your answers to my many questions that you've ignored. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "definition list" looks terrible. It's unformatted, and I've never seen anyone demand anything like it on any other page on this website. I think it's abundantly clear at this point you aren't willing to actually discuss your edit, and you're willing to edit war to defend it - and that's deeply unfortunate. That also means this discussion is probably a complete waste of time - I'm not willing to engage in an edit war over this, but if your edit is reversed or modified (and it likely will be), I would highly advise you to follow WP:BRD. ToaNidhiki05 15:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with formatting it. I'm concerned about its semantics, not its style. You can do amazing things with CSS. Still waiting for you to answer my many questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not answering your questions because they essentially amount to "why do you hate blind people" and "why do you think accessibility is bad". If you want me to answer questions, ask better questions. I've tried to address your concerns, but you aren't budging an inch on anything, which again, leads to my conclusion that you aren't actually interested in discussing your edit or changing it in any way. I can't reason with that. ToaNidhiki05 15:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. It is a very simple question to ask why you removed the row scopes. I have no clue why you would do that. Can you please explain why you did? I am also completely fine with whatever styling you want: that seems to be your primary concern, so I don't know why you're misrepresenting my position. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems in the latest edit, Toa has restored the row scopes. We should probably move on from that.
How about we put the definition list at the bottom of the table, replacing the key? IMO it looks about the same and is way easier to understand Aaron Liu (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--do you mean as part of the table itself? No, it's not tabular data and it is a definition list. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... on second thought, putting it before the table is also a lot better because for people who use un-advanced screen readers they can hear the key before reading the table.I don't really know what to do with the looks of the definition list. 🤷 Aaron Liu (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with the looks? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it looks very separated from the table, but either way its not a big deal. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to say that the AFL was started by Lamar Hunt. Change Bill Belichick to Jerod Mayo.Ufhsid (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add a * next to the Ravens because they relocated from Cleveland. 100.18.7.102 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Per the note on the page, the Ravens were considered a new franchise, and the Browns were considered to be inactive from 1996 to 1998. PianoDan (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm[edit]
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alyssalauri (article contribs).
In the first paragraph there is an opinion, being "the highest professional level of American football in the world.". This is clearly just someone's opinion and due to the competition not being open to any other countries, I don't see how this claim can be made. John arneVN (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping another country to pick up American football and organize a high-level professional league. Its just that no body has done it. So by reduction, the NFL is the highest professional level of American football in the world. Removing the "in the world" part would imply that there was another league higher or same level as NFL and that is simply not true. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, it's the only fully professional American football league in the world, save the newly merged UFL, which is by its own admission a lower tier. This is approaching WP:BLUE territory. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a source already in the lead backing the claim up. ToaNidhiki05 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Oppose all – The NFL is not only called the NFL and it's not beneficial to move it to the short form acronym. Then, for consistency, it doesn't make sense to use the acronym for the rest of the pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo actually isn't consistent. For example, there's the existing season pages (e.g. 2023 NFL season) and the drafts (2023 NFL draft), among others. —Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, especially the main article per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. As an encyclopedia, we should use the actual name of a topic as our title, rather than an abbreviation of that name, unless "NFL" was used exclusively, which is not the case. The other articles are less important because those are names we made up, but I see no compelling reason to change them. As long as one version redirects to the other, it makes little difference. Station1 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except standalone National Football League The main National Football League page's existing name is consistent with MOS:ACROTITLE and its Central Intelligence Agency example (...in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications). The full "National Football League" expansion can be seen on The New York Times, for example. For the others, where NFL is part of a longer descriptive title, the WP:CONCISE policy seems more applicable. The desciptive titles aren't ambiguous, as they are American football specific. There are other longstanding examples such as NFL playoffs, NFL preseason, NFL lockout and the individual seasons (2023 NFL season), and drafts (2023 NFL draft) where the meaning is clear, and the primary topic of NFL is anyways the football league.—Bagumba (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i was gonna say by scarletviolet's logic, we'd have to abbreviate every sports league title too EricDoesEdits (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing the main article as well as 'Timeline of the National Football League' and Support the rest per the above comments as well as reasoning at the NBA requested move. The timeline is a historical record of the league and its development and ongoing heritage, so the full name seems historically significant there. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose National Football League → NFL. Srnec (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all but NFL (and neutral on the timeline) for the sake of concision. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: I like the title of Natonal Hockey League, Major League Baseball etc. But, i have mixed feelings about XFL, USFL etc. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PlaneCrashKing1264: Sorry, I meant to ask you about all the other longer NFL titles in the above nomination (e.g. List of NFL awards, etc.) —Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Completely unnecessary and adds needless ambiguity. Abbreviations are usually best avoided for article titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Although I would suspect an attempt to rename it would fail as it would be considered primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except main article National Football League - reading the full name takes up too much space and distracts from what everyone is attempting to decipher. We want to know the specific contents of the article and NFL is self-explanatory. Is the opposition assuming the readers are 2 years old and learning world sports culture for the first time? If so, it does not take a rocket scientist to put two and two together or maybe these newcomers should avoid these one-off pages and start out at the main articles then to learn the basics first before diving into these more esoteric topics. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the renaming of all of the above articles. Catfurball (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not particularly large. What would be added? Consider the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT:
...editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article.
It's useful for this page and doesn't need a split. Remember that for every split a large percentage of readers are lost, so best to keep everything in this article presentable and in one place. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not got too much detail, it's a good amount to summarise the main points of how teams, conferences and TV blackouts work, which are all key concepts to understanding the NFL (particularly for readers that don't watch much NFL). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=upper-alpha> tags or ((efn-ua)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=upper-alpha)) template or ((notelist-ua)) template (see the help page).