Talk:American football/Archive 5

Editors getting touchy?
why so sensitive to articles that mention the failure of establishing pro leagues outside the US. it's a mere fact, a well sourced one at that. BelAirRuse (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's still misleading, name-calling aside. Minor-level American football leagues aren't all that popular in the US either, including the WLAF, the immediate predecessor of NFL Europe. The reason it moved to Europe full time was that it drew more spectators in Europe than in the US/Canada. The sport is played in Europe, another fact not mentioned, just not at the professional level right now. Yes, it's not as popular as other sports in Europe, but be accurate or leave it out completely. - BilCat (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * name another pro league outside the US. i'm waiting. BelAirRuse (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Name another one (current) IN the US! Without looking it up. - BilCat (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

also; with multiple attempts to establish professional leagues in other regions ending in failure. how is that misleading? every pro project the NFL has attempted has gone bust. that's the reality.BelAirRuse (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, misleading. - BilCat (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

specify how or it's POV pushing. BelAirRuse (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The article isn't solely about professional football leagues, nor is that the only measure of sport's popularity. So it's POV and undue weight. - BilCat (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

definitely not. page also mentions that it's a world wide sport. what the page doesn't mention is that the sport has attempted to branch out but was unsuccessful in gaining enough of a foothold to form pro leagues. removing this info gives that false impression that pro football is as widespread as say hockey or association football. which it isn't. it;s false advertising. BelAirRuse (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The statement of "which hosts the only professional football leagues on the planet" is not true. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

can you specify? BelAirRuse (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Professional football" includes all gridiron football leagues, including Canadian. Lizard  (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, first we have to figure out what the definition of "professional" is. But the pages for the China Arena Football League and Elite Football League of India both say they're professional. X-League, German Football League and German Football League 2 are included on the List of professional sports leagues. Hmm. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Professional = full time occupation, athletes main job is the game. the other leagues you mentioned are all amateur or semi pro. BelAirRuse (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we're gonna need some more discussion and sources for the definitions of professional and semi-pro before we decide that. But if so, those pages need to be updated. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, the lead is supposed to be unsourced. Everything in the lead should realistically be cited in the body. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

it is. in the abroad section. only the abroad section is misleading and gives undue weight to growth, barely mentioning the failed projects. Also, touchy editors would remove my addition even though it's in the page as unsourced. like lizard has. BelAirRuse (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What failed projects specifically. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

NFL Europe BelAirRuse (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's only one. The article says "leagues". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

and the Intercontinental Football League, and Football League of Europe, etc. for an authority on the AF page, you guys are sorely lacking on information. BelAirRuse (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Football League of Europe's article states it was semi-pro, and gives no connection to the NFL. - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

yeah... that's why the winner is given the Jim Thorpe trophy. Bilcat please remove yourself from the discussion, you obviously have little or not knowledge when it comes to AF. BelAirRuse (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've readded the tags that were removed, as I'm still contesting the sentence being in the Lead. Please don't remove it again without a clear consensus here that the issues have been addressed. - BilCat (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

how is adding the HISTORICAL FACT that NFL Europe folded, not neutral? also, please stop removing new section i created without consent. BelAirRuse (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop calling me names. -  BilCat (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

fine. not that i did. BelAirRuse (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Eurotrash . Oh, I don't mean it as an insult. So its OK. - BilCat (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

that's on a different level. people like you do a disservice to wiki. BelAirRuse (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was simply illustrating that insulting is in the eye of the beholder, regardless of your intent in using the term fanboy, I took itbas an insult, and you already knew that. Further, demanding that I stop participating is also highly insulting to me. - BilCat (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not your choice who participates in discussions here. - BilCat (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do apologize for letting the conversation get personal. Hopefully we can have a civil discussion when the user returns from his block. - BilCat (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

now even the existence of sourced content on American football outside the US is too controversial??
forget the manner in which it's written or where it's place. are you f-ing serious? is this a huffpost/fox news opinion blog or what? BelAirRuse (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your content is misleading and much of what is good is already mentioned in the article.  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

point out what's misleading please. the fact that, these leagues existed or that they folded some with huge losses? I'm guessing you also don't hold forbes and the guardian as reliable sources. BelAirRuse (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

hello!!! you there? if you remove my content 'due to discussion on talk' page at least be present at discussion. Don't just use it as a weak excuse to whitewash the page.BelAirRuse (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Be patient. It's morning where I am and I have things to do. What's misleading is you claiming leagues had NFL involvement when they didn't - or leagues that didn't even exist as being actual things. Meanwhile, you ignore the actual leagues started by Europeans, Japanese, etc. The information you are adding is misleading at best and contradictory at worst. There is already a section, International Play, discussing this issue far better and more rationally, not being NFL-centric, with properly formatted citations. In other words: the content you are adding is either wrong, or it is already said better elsewhere in the article.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

the content i'm adding to the abroad section is the facts about it;s impact internationally or lack there off. international section is totally different. also, what;s misleading? the fact the NFL Europe, folded with 30 million in annual losses? or that the 2 other leagues failed? how are those contradictory, tell me. i simplified it as much as possible, even removed it from the lede, but it's obvious your goal is censorship. you took ownership of the page. BelAirRuse (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those "two other leagues" either never made it past the drawing board, or had no NFL involvement. FYI: you are being extremely combative, not assuming good faith, and have already reverted four times today. I would suggest you stop or you'll face another, even longer block.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

i have assumed good faith, i simplified the added content, even let it slide from the lede, even though it means giving undue weight to the business model. still you weren't satisfied. remove it! sources and validity be damned! right? BelAirRuse (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Page looks like an advertisement for NFL business model
if i weren't educated on the matter, i would be given the impression that the NFL has thrived and is about to take over the world as the greatest, bestest, etc thing since sliced bread. not one mention of failed projects. not even in the abroad section. in fact, any mention of it is censored. BelAirRuse (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the NFL. This article is about the entire sport of American football. In fact, it specifically notes the closure of NFL Europa, and the lack of play internationally - all in the International Play section. The Abroad section notes specifically issues in the UK.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The National Football League, the most popular American football league, has the highest average attendance of any sports league in the world; its championship game, the Super Bowl, ranks among the most-watched club sporting events in the world, and the league has an annual revenue of around US$10 billion.

not about the NFL??? really? it also gives a hyperbolic impression of NFL success. especially after removing any trace of expensive failed projects. it gives undue weight to the NFL business model and popularity of the sport. BelAirRuse (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't like factual information, but this is an encyclopedia.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

the fact that NFL Europe and other projects failed with high losses is not information? I think you should take that up with the Guardian or Forbes you obviously seem to have better sources than they do. BelAirRuse (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggest adding area to Field and equipment
Football games are played on a 57000 square foot rectangular field that measures 120 yards (110 m) long and 53.33 yards (48.76 m) wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.22 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2016‎ (UTC)


 * The dimensions are already in the article, but I don't see where the square footage adds to basic understanding of the article. (Unless we had a paragraph or table with comparative areas of American football fields, Canadian football fields, association football fields, and rugby pitches, but I'm not sure that would be more help than hindrance.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Defensive two-point conversion
Should this be mentioned in this article? I don't see it. For reference, see Two-point_conversion. Brianga (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)