Talk:Arena Football League (2010–)

AF1 to AFL
This name change confuses me, because why wouldn't this be considered the same as the Arena Football League now? Obviously there are about a dozen teams missing from 2008, but now that Arena Football 1 is the Arena Football League, why is it not THE Arena Football League, and not like the way United Football League (1961) is seperate from United Football League (2009)? This press release gives me the impression that this is the AFL resuming operations after suspending operations after the 2008 season, making the 2009 season simply a canceled season. They own all the assets, including team names (except for the Desperados I guess), trademarks, stats, the Arenabowl name, the official webiste in the AFL's article under the external links section redirects to this AFL's website, and the press release I provided calls this a "relaunch," so why wouldn't this just be an "under new ownership" situation? Tampabay721 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be the same league since AF1 bought AFL and then decided to launch as Arena Football league. To me thats just like how you would do for articles when they change owners. So, i believe they should be merged together. Gman 124 talk 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * added merge tags. Gman 124 talk 20:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge, for now anyway. As far as I can tell from the sources, AF1 bought the assets of/rights to the AFL, but it is a different organization. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * but its the same league, they are even saying that on their site that "Arena football is back"  Gman 124 talk 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How would we explain the teams from the old AFL that only froze when the old league shut down? Since they might return someday, what should we describe them as? Tom Danson (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the merge. If the new league is actively advertising and presenting itself as a continuation of the old (continuing use of logos, nomenclatures, history and trademarks, etc.) then it only makes sense to refer to it as such. Lothar the Terrible 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd call them inactive if they hadn't announced that they had folded like the VooDoo and Avengers did. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, and this article even says "Chicago Rush and Utah Blaze also adopted their respective AFL teams' identities too. they are new owners, but advertised as the same former team." and also "With the league's purchase of the AFL's assets, it will use old AFL team names for any expansion teams that open in former AFL markets."  Gman 124 talk 22:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * support merge' clarifying my stance. (though i think i already said that above, i think) Gman 124 talk 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger, for now simply because it can be confusing as hell. Let's see how it goes for a while.  Cra sh  Underride  23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The two leagues are indeed separate entities, but for most readers that is a legal technicality (which can be explained in an article) that has nothing to do with the information they are looking for.  We do not have separate articles for General Motors (1908) and General Motors (2009), even though they technically are separate legal entities.  I could give several or even dozens of similar examples if needed.  And, with respect to Crash Underride, I think it will be confusing as hell not to merge the articles.  For example, look at ArenaFootballLeague-stub.  Say someone sees this template on a bio of a player and clicks on the Arena Football League link.  If the player is someone who was active in 2008 and is still active in 2010, which article should they go to?  This is going to confuse people without serving any useful purpose.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose currently. At this time, I still find it very hard to tell if the league is operating as a new entity or if they are in fact positioning themselves as the relaunched league.  At this time, we simply do not have enough evidence to say that they are the same.  Even in regards to the argument above, I don't think we can look at everything as it stands now because of the constant flux that things are in.  I think the best we can do is stand pat and adjust things down the road as news and information warrants.  As of right now, I oppose the merger and suggest that the matter be revisited in the future. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When considering your positions on the issue, please take the following press release, taken from the official AFL website, into consideration. The wording, to me, is fairly clear cut that the league is considering the 2010 season as a "relaunch" rather than a new league. Lothar the Terrible 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The press release can be found at arenafootball.com
 * Changing my vote to Support. I believe there is now sufficient evidence to conclude that the current Arena Football League is the same entity as the previous incarnation.  The teams, the ArenaBowl, the records, the history....  The AFL in 2008 shut down to restructure the league and its finances.  The Arena Football 1 group came in and did that - the AFL is now restructured and playing again.WeatherManNX01 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * see this link. its an teleconference audio, in which they say that af2 aquired all the team names, records, and media. So, i think for the teams that take on the name of former teams, will be the same situation as the cleavand browns thing. and they do say "relauch of Arena Footbal League" Gman 124 talk 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Wait and see if the league actually gets going and gets going strong and how much history of the first league is embraced by the new league. Dincher (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple. It includes all of its previous history. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home


 * Support- the league brass is certainly indicating that they consider it a continuation of the original Arena League. So have most press mentions I've seen thus far. The analogy to General Motors R'n'B mentioned above is exacly what I was thinking. That was another merger that carried as well, setting precedence for a bankruptcy reorganization to carry through one article. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dincher, if this league uses records and stats from the original AFL then yes however if they don't then they should be taken as separate.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It does include original AFL's stats and records. It even has the same logo as the oringnal AFL.. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home


 * Oppose. I see af1 being a new league that wants to separate itself from the financial woes of the AFL. It combined the AFL and af2 to create a new league. I think there is historical significance in maintaining the current AFL and af2 pages until we see what becomes of af1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botrain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's the thing. It's not AF1 anymore. If they wanted to distance themselves from the old AFL, they wouldn't have renamed themselves the AFL. Tampabay721 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support. The answer is simple. It is the same as the original AFL. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home


 * Oppose This is a new version of Arena Football, cutting off the dead weight and moving forward- it's not the same organization, despite some old AFL teams being members of the current AFL. The old AFL is totally dead. As a note- please do not leave a vote if you're not an AFL fan- this should be voted on by people who know something about the AFL. Leave Message, Njshorts home

Support, on the grounds that besides a few fixes to the history page,maybe with a title that says bankupcy, meage with the af2 to from af1, renamed... etc etc etc, they are one and the same, dont need two articles.--75.94.196.171 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - This is the same league. One of the reasons for calling themselves the AF1 at first was to keep itself covered until they acquired the rights of the AFL and all of it's assets and intellectual properties. This league is using the same history of the league before the cancelled season so I support a merger.  BronchoKyle (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - The Arena Football League is back. When they suspended operation for the 2009 season, their goal was to be back for 2010.  They are back for 2010.  It should be merged with the other one since it's the same league.


 * Support the AFL purchased and owns the AFL's identity, history, etc... way to confusing and not practical to have two seperate sets of Articles for the same league. It began as AF1 until the league gained control of the original AFL assets.--Bhockey10 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The new AFL is operating as a continuation of the old AFL, under a new business plan. It was originally put together as a new league, but when they acquired the assets of the old AFL through bankruptcy, they decided to consider themselves a continuation. They have adopted the statistics and histories of the remaining AFL teams. I'm the editor of ArenaFan.com, so I'm intimately familiar with the situation, both the public side and behind the scenes. Nolesrule (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Next steps
Consensus - Support the merge:
 * Support (9): Tampabay721, Gman124, Lothar the Terrible, R'n'B, Oknazevad, Yellow Evan, BronchoKyle, Bhockey10, nolesrule
 * Oppose (7): BilCat, Crash Underride, WeatherManNX01, Dincher, Giants27, Botrain, Njshorts

Accordingly these will have to remain as two separate articles for the time being. However, there are nearly 1,000 other articles on Wikipedia that contain links to "Arena Football League". Since the two leagues are going to have separate articles, all of these links need to be fixed to point to the article about the appropriate league, depending on the context. I hope that all those who have participated in this discussion will assist in completing this task. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Iowa Barnstormers website seems to imply that it's both a continuation and a separate entity, but perhaps the latter quote should be viewed as a sic... link to article "The Iowa Barnstormers open their 2010 season 'Back Where They Belong,' as they re-join the Arena Football League." "The Rush return to the field after going dark during the one year hiatus of the original AFL." Also, this is pretty much WP:OR but I've been listening to the live radio stream from the Rush's website, and the announcer keeps referring to it as a continuation. Although he's not a representative of the league, I would argue that if he was incorrect, he would have been corrected sometime before the 3 quarters they've finished as I'm writing this. Of course I have no idea what they're saying on NFL Network because that's not a channel I have. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge them. The people have spoken.

The season is approaching...
So now that we're less than a month away from the start of the season, I think it's about time each team gets its season article created. In my sandbox I prepared one for the Predators, if anyone would like to approve, disapprove, make comments, questions, suggestions, etc. It's pretty much the same layout as all the articles from the 2008 season, but the table for the schedule is different, and I left a few sections out for the time being just so there aren't any blank sections ("Statistics" for example), that can be added in the future. Obviously certain aspects will have to be changed for each team. One thing though, instead of using scoring summaries for each individual game, I would suggest using Crash Underride's idea that was supposed to be put into use for the 2009 season, and type out an actual summary of what happened in each game. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that you have implemented the current version of Americanfootballbox to the 2010 AFL season articles. I'm kind of curious how it will work here if you do intend to use them as the AFL season progresses. If you haven't looked at the template's page history or Template talk:Americanfootballbox, this template was originally modeled after Footballbox to be used on the IFAF World Cup articles. Earlier this month, I changed the layout to resemble the current general format used on the AFL, NFL and American football articles. And it also allows us to have a standard template that can be changed from a central location in the future.


 * One thing I might do is to add a collapsible row to the template so scoring summaries can be placed there, sort of like how IceHockeybox lists the goals scored in a collapsible row. As for the future of this template, I'm totally undecided if it should evolve into something that looks more like the other sports match box templates, the format that is used on 2009 Baltimore Ravens season and 2009 Indianapolis Colts season, or a combination of both. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I had just gotten halfway through with creating all the 2010 team articles when I came across your edit to 2009 Florida Tuskers season (since it's on my watchlist) that converted the linescores to Americanfootballbox, and I did see that you intended for that template to be the new norm, so I went back to all the AFL articles I had created for 2010 and put it in there. I didn't include the weather parameter, since that's obviously not a concern for an indoor football league. I also didn't include the TV and TV announcers parameters because I'm not sure about how the league is going to go about televising games that aren't on the NFL Network, and I thought putting NFL Network in there every time a game was get televised would be redundant.


 * As for the collapsing, I think it would be better for a reader if the linescore was at least always visible and the scoring summary was collapsed like IceHockeybox. I hadn't planned on including scoring summaries for this year after how messy looking they all were in the 2008 articles, but the ones you referred to are much more appealing. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Move It!
I agree with the pledge that this should be transferred into Arena Football League (1988-2008). Thanks for letting me submit my opinion! Canterbury21 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Combine them
Though this AFL was launched as the AF1, they did purchase all of the assets of the old AFL, which includes debts. In doing so, the AF1 became the AFL. (Bes2224 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Agreed, I will merge per {{WP:ILIKEIT]]. YE Tropical  Cyclone  16:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reopen merge debate
I think this article should be subjected to a merge discussion (merging with the old AFL). Now that the first full season is done, I think it is a good time for evaluation on if the league is conducting as a new league or an old league. After this merge discussion, the whole matter should likely be closed (barring a major change in information).

I would do it, but to be blunt I dont know how to start a merge discussion (or merge articles for that matter). Can someone do this?RonSigPi (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can nominate an article for merge the way you can for deletion, not yet at least since Articles for merging is only a proposed process at the moment. It'll have to be done here the way the old discussion began last time. Maybe keep this discussion open for 7 days? Tampabay721 (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right know, there appears to be a consensus to merge. I support the merge. YE  Tropical  Cyclone  19:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I support as well, given this article I came across on their website. The important thing to me like it was a few months ago was how they portrayed themselves rather than what everyone's own opinion was. When one of their own articles states that the AFL is entering it's 23rd season, that's all I needed to see, because if it was a "brand new league" then it would have said it was their "first" or "inaugural" season, right? Tampabay721 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)The previous discussion seems to be have a slight favor towards merge. But it is largely from the before the season. Now, post-Arena Bowl, it is even more obvious the they should be merged, especially in light of the league's statements, including continuation of Arena Bowl numbering. It makes it obvious that the league does consider it a revival/continuation of the same league, not a separate entity.oknazevad (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Suport - Now that it is clear that the league considers itself one, and we have reliable statements of such, we can merge. - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge the two. since the current version considers it a continuation. Gman 124 talk 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. As I stated before, all legacies and records have remained intact. As TampaBay721 mentioned before, the league's official website referred to the season just gone as its "23rd season", which culminated in ArenaBowl XXIII. All of these support to the ongoing promotion of this as a continuation of the former league rather than a reboot. Lothar The Terrible (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge For reasons stated by those above. RonSigPi (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge for the same reasons. WeatherManNX01 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well since no one has come to object to a merge in the last week, I think it's okay to go ahead and merge them. Now the question is, who wants to do the work? Tampabay721 (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Completing the merger
The older article is now at Arena Football League. I've done merges before, but mostly on aircraft articles. I'm not that familar with the articles here, but I could do it. There aren't that many sections on the 2010+ article, so they can be incoporated fairly easily. The Lead will need to be rewritten the most, but should not be that difficult. I can probably do it tonight, as I'll be up late, but I'll wait a few hours to see if someone else is eager to do it. - BilCat (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've put both articles together on the same page at User:BilCat/Sandbox/Arena Football League. This will make it easier to collaborate on the merger, and we can move it to the main page when it's completed. I'll try to do any work there tonight, and anyone else is welcome to jump in and do any needed work. If you want to edit for an extended time (30 minutes or so), be sure to add an in use header so that no one else will try to edit the page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to some help from User:Oknazevad, the merger is just about complete. If a few editors can take a quick look at the sandbox page to see if there are any major problems that need to be addressed first, that would be good. If it's fine, we can upload the new version sometime today (Sept. 1, US time). Thanks to all! - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still a few more tweaks needed in trimming out the outdated material detailing the bankruptcy reorganization in "play-by-play"-esque fashion, as it's too detailed for an encyclopedia. I already removed the stuff about "future expansion" from the pre-bankruptcy era, as it became utterly irrelevant.oknazevad (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't make too many major changes. That table under the "Expansions and contractions" section is a little tricky to me given the situation of the league and the teams from 2008 that, as far as I know, are inactive but haven't folded like the Avengers and VooDoo did. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I put a brief note calling "all other teams" suspended, which is accurate enough. The issue is 2010. The reactivated teams should be listed as returning, and the teams that came from af2 should be listed as new (as they were new to the AFL at the time), It's going to be a big line on the chart, but that's to be expected. it was a big shakeup.oknazevad (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we bypass redirect on all the internal links across Wikipedia that are Arena Football League (1987–2008) or (2010–). If yes, perhaps Woohookitty could be asked to repair all the links with Wikicleaner, since he did that to disambiguate all the links that needed to be disammed a few months ago. Tampabay721 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's let Woohookitty take care of it if he can. I shudder at that part of the merge. Took care of the charts, including removing the self-redirects. What you guys think?oknazevad (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me right now. If there are any small errors, they can be fixed in the future whether soon or later, as with any article. Tampabay721 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Aside) We should update the af2 article while we're thinking of stuff. There's still much written in the present tense, still a "Current" teams list (obviously outdated) and a few other elements that just need to be streamlined.oknazevad (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect this article and do a history merge. YE Tropical  Cyclone  13:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A history merge of Arena Football League (2010–) to Arena Football League? I think there's too many overlapping edits for that to work. Leaving the page history here with the redirect is standard, and usually sufficient. - BilCat (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DONE! It might be possible to histmerge from the sandbox to the main page, but in case it's not, I've included edit credit for the users who participated in the merge in the edit summary. This should satify licensing credit, I hope. - BilCat (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)