Talk:National Football League/Archive 4

Naming
Okay, I saw on most soccer articles, the sport is listed as football, rather than association football where that same standard isn't applied here. I've been advised to begin a discussion on that here, it seems to be a double standard and I think it's important to have a uniform naming standard for all football codes. Busy Moose (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an issue with all soccer articles. The article on FIFA as well as most affiliates, for example, uses 'association football'. The Premier League article uses 'association football'. The Premier League is the most rough analogue to the NFL (generally considered the most popular league in the world in its sport) and that is good enough to appease me.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As Toa Nidhiki05 stated, I do not see a double standard. FIFA and the Premier League articles are about on the same level as the National Football League article, in terms of popularity, importance, and significance. And thus it is more likely to get more searches and traffic from regions around the world who may not be familiar with all the different football codes. Once you drill down to individual teams, players and seasons that are not likely searched by many users worldwide, that becomes less of a problem. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Amongst current Premier League teams, all but three use "football" rather than "association football" (two of those have "association football" in their names.) Serie A and UEFA Champions League are also "football." I'm sure if we looked at all the leagues and all the teams and all assorted articles around Wikipedia, it would vary wildly as well between "association football," "football" or even "soccer." I think it makes sense to have some sort of standardization there, and in the other football codes. I'm indifferent to a particular route, as long as we can avoid bias for or against any particular code. Busy Moose (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for some sort of standardized consistency across all "football" articles across the board on Wikipedia, that does not currently exist, and your assessment is correct that it does vary widely. There were similar proposals back in 2010 to standardize this, but that eventually resulted with no consensus. Those discussions are now archived at Talk:Football/Archive 16 and Talk:Football/Archive 16. The issue is more complex when you consider that some countries really only play association football, and then you have a country like Australia where they have three popular codes: association football, rugby football and Australian rules football. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be complex in some countries, but all the more reason to standardize here. I think per your point, fully spelling out the codes at the beginning of articles would help avoid confusion and bias while maintaining accuracy. Busy Moose (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you read that first archived discussion, I did write in my comment there: "'football' should be treated like an abbreviation: the full name of the code should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter 'football' can be used elsewhere in the body text". The problem that has led to no consensus both times, IMO, was that those editors maintaining the association football articles either disagree or are unwilling to go along with that position for one reason or another. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The only issue we can really deal with on this page is what to use on this article itself. At this point, the consensus appears to be to continue to use American football at first mention, and football everywhere else in this article. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus on those discussions before, for or against anything. I want to reiterate my hope that we can gain some kind of consistency amongst all football code related articles. Busy Moose (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the consensus for this article, by both discussion on this talk page and long-term usage in the article. We can't change consensus everywhere else from this talk page. If you want to do that, you'll have to go elsewhere, such as Talk:Football. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine. This is a problem that needs to be solved. Busy Moose (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Links
Does anyone else support the idea of adding the Super Bowl navigational box at the bottom of the page? The "see also" section at the bottom could use a few more links to related NFL articles. Zdawg1029 (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of draft picks per team ?
First it states : "The draft consists of seven rounds, with each of the 32 clubs getting one pick in each round"

Then it states : "Aside from the 32 picks each club gets...".

Huh ? So how many picks does team get : 7 or 32 ? Rcbutcher (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015
Please add ABC to the TV partner list as ABC used to have NFL games

65.175.243.206 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done We only add current TV partners to the infobox.  Zappa  24  Mati   23:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015
The Patriots were the first team to make it to any NFL team.

Googy05 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
 * Also please be specific with your request. If this can be backed up with a source please state where you want to place this in the article. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List teams above schedule formula
Let's cut to the chase here. What teams make up the NFL is way more important than the scheduling formula, which is relatively transitory, and pretty trivial to most readers. There's a reason the MLB, NBA and NHL articles have the equivalent sections further up. And it makes little sense to speak of the divisions in the scheduling formula without saying what the divisions are and which teams are in them. oknazevad (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Please people, wait until the 2015 NFL season ends to change the blank spaces for coaches to be hired in the next season.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? If a new coach is hired, they are the coach of the team effective immediately. This isn't the article for the 2015 season, it's the article for the entire league, and some teams have new coaches already. The New York Giants don't have a head coaching vacancy, their coach is Ben MacAdoo. So we state that. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Eagles Coach
I do believe that the Eagles Head Coach should remain as vacant until the team can officially announce it, which won't be until at least 1/17. Pat Shurmur is still listed as Interim Head Coach, according to the official Philadelphia Eagles web page. Until an announcement is made, any name other than Shurmur's should be treated as rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasjc2001 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Map
Someone should update ? 152.236.198.25 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried, but my .svg editing abilities are t up to snuff, because the dots are all on one layer together, not separate elements. Though if someone does update that map, can they also use a different color for each division? It's far too difficult to see the difference between conferences; the shapes don't look any different at the low resolution of the thumbnail. oknazevad (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request!!
Please add the Rochester Jeffersons to "On August 20, 1920, a meeting was held by representatives of the Akron Pros, Canton Bulldogs, Cleveland Indians, Rock Island Islanders and Dayton Triangles at the Jordan and Hupmobile auto showroom in Canton, Ohio.[8]" Leo Lyons of the Rochester Jeffersons was in attendance, as mentioned on both Leo and the Rochester Jefs pages. 67.240.218.221 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016
Could somebody add "(as American Professional Football Association)" next to the Start date and age template, so that it says "{start date and age|1920|8|20} (as American Professional Football Association)" to show its original founding name?

96.255.203.83 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. Good faith request, but the former names (with dates) are on the line immediately proceeding it, making it redundant. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016
Maiojadiad (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done No request has been made.  NFL  is  Awesome   (ZappaOMati) 19:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

NFL Headquarters Coordinates Are Incorrect
Currently, the coordinates associated with this article are incorrect. They point to the Stub Hub Center in Dominguez Hills, CA. It should point to their actual headquarters: 345 Park Ave, New York, NY 10154 (40.757962, -73.972332) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABorba (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Football League. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/02-08-038.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2001/01/22/afl_history_2/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nfluk.com/opinions/articles/nfl-explained-franchise-tag
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6KICriEsV?url=http://seahawksmedia.com/RecFactBook/FactBook2013.pdf to http://seahawksmedia.com/RecFactBook/FactBook2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
Last sentence of Free Agency section reads like the salary cap for 2015 is 10$ more than 2014, instead of $10 million more. "Each club is subject to a salary cap, which is set at $143.28 million for the 2015 season, $10 more than in 2014 and $20 million more than in 2013."

16 Team Bracket
In case anyone wanted to know, I created a 16 team bracket in the event that the NFL decides to expandthe playoffs from 12 teams to 16. You can find it under the page Template:16TeamBracket-NFL Divisional.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2017
there is a leagu that may be a league. 2605:E000:9161:A500:D03F:AE8E:6DC:D96F (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on National Football League. 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/20130513101847/http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/lady-luck-and-the-lombardi-legend/4897/ to http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/lady-luck-and-the-lombardi-legend/4897/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127133646/http://tracking.si.com/2012/10/18/nfl-non-profit-tax-status-senator/ to http://tracking.si.com/2012/10/18/nfl-non-profit-tax-status-senator/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101013640/http://nflcommunications.com/2012/04/17/2012-nfl-schedule-announced/ to http://nflcommunications.com/2012/04/17/2012-nfl-schedule-announced/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130129092638/http://nflcommunications.com/2013/01/03/nfl-2012-tv-recap/ to http://nflcommunications.com/2013/01/03/nfl-2012-tv-recap/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120150105/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=Jackson_Bo to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=Jackson_Bo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Football League. 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/20130513014517/http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19990912BROWNS.html to http://www.cleveland.com/brownshistory/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbrowns%2Fmore%2Fhistory%2F19990912BROWNS.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901093043/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-28/sports/41525808_1_preseason-games-nfl-preseason-18-game-season to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-28/sports/41525808_1_preseason-games-nfl-preseason-18-game-season

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions against Dallas fro taking a knee
Did not hear what was decided? $5 mil? $100,000 per person. (Might be harder for the assistant coaches.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.29.23 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018
Remove the Penises. Seriously, there are dicks on the page RN. 67.60.215.2 (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Dicks on page 2601:645:8580:272E:70F2:7EF4:CA66:5AA9 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

remove penises pls 31425364y (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the vandalism which occurred earlier has now been fixed. One may need to refresh the page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Football League. 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/20130729082243/http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/567574/Buffalo--A-city-cursed-with--bad-sports-luck.html to http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/567574/Buffalo--A-city-cursed-with--bad-sports-luck.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018
100.8.144.109 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

How well supported is the claim that 30% of NFL players will show visible brain damage?
NFL Players Have 30% Chance Of Alzheimer's Or Dementia, New NFL Concussion Data Suggests, Forbes, Dan Diamond, Sept. 12, 2014.

" .  .  .  According to the report by the Analysis Research and Planning Corporation, an actuarial firm that was commissioned by the players:  .  .  .  "


 * Okay, this is one thread of evidence. I want others as well. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018
Change the number of teams listed in the infobox from 30 to 32 Pixljumper (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Accidentally changed as part of another edit. Fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap
I don't know if this go here, but in the OpenStreetMap  the New York Giants are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.11.123 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC) That has nothing to do with Wikipedia contact OpenStreetMap about that error Wikipedia does not own or control OpenStreetMap Abote2 (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

NFL champions teams
I think the championships years that are listed wrong on the teams, it's got some of them like the latest champion (Eagles) as 2018 champions, isn't it supposed to be 2017 since that was the year the season starts? I think the NFL champions goes by the year the season starts The Speller (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we fix this? You can go on Google to look up an NFL team and it'll show the championships wrong The Speller (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Team Table edit
Regarding the asterisk "* denotes that the club has relocated at some point in its existence", the Baltimore Ravens should have an asterisk next to their name because they relocated from Cleveland to become the Ravens. (Similarly, the Tennessee Titans relocated from Houston and they do have an asterisk next to their name.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markacer (talk • contribs) 05:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Officially, the Ravens were a 1996 expansion team. See Cleveland Browns relocation controversy. oknazevad (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018
In the history section, it states that 400 million viewers watched the 1989 Super Bowl. This is obviously impossible as the entire population of the US was not yet 300 million. Please fix. 2604:2000:1382:C02F:C924:62A8:6C23:2307 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The source (Encyclopedia of International Sports Studies) says "400 million viewers in sixty countries saw the 1989 Super Bowl".  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:  JTP (talk • contribs) 03:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The viewership number seems inflated, but the source (put out by Routledge, a respected publisher) does indeed make that claim. I clarified that the number is for a global audience and added a citation to the source. Josef Horáček (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Organization
Hello,

This is a really great article with lots of information. I just have some questions about the layout. I feel the section "Free Agency" should not be placed at the end. I don't know where to put it. Or does anything think it should not be moved? Thank you for your time. Jmmonty16 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:National Football League
This portal is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:National Football League.-- Moxy 🍁 11:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-organization of the article
I don't think that Draft and Free agency should be near the end. I think they should be In the section directly before the Preseason but I'm worried if I edit it I'll screw something up. Can one of you edit it? Memer101 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is not a timeline of a typical NFL league year, it's based on scale of importance. The season structure (preseason, regular season, postseason) is much more notable than the draft and free agency processes, so they are listed higher.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

New CBA changes
Most of these new CBA changes are not beginning this year, apparently, according to the NFL Network. We need to wait until the exact when and where details are confirmed before adjusting anything here, and I assume these will be out at some point in the near future. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The expanded playoffs are beginning this year according to many sources. The practice squad and roster expansions are in the CBA that you can read here. That's all that was added to this article, the 17-game season won't happen for another couple years.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  16:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. We should add a hidden note in the article about the 17-game season, then, to deter others from adding it. Toa Nidhiki05 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the note about 17 games in two spots that reference the 16-game schedule. It probably makes sense to include the likely expansion to 17 games somewhere in the actual article.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe in the season format section? We'll also need to redo the playoffs format image. Toa Nidhiki05 16:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comprehensive comparison
I think it would be good, if data is available, to make a table like presented below. It's hard to gauge how good teams have been throughtout history. Some have a generation or two and gather those SB appearances but to see which ones are consistently good and compare them would be another thing. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There is an article at List of all-time NFL win–loss records that may interest you.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  12:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

NFL.com recap link change as of May 13, 2020
Hello, when I was overhauling the NFL wikitable schedules dating from 2001–2008, I noticed that the link was changed when I tried to add links to schedules in NFL articles that doesn't have highlights was all gone all of sudden as of May 13, 2020, and instead got 404 error every time I tried to click on a link E g. https://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007090912/2007/REG1/titans@jaguars?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr and now NFL.com is now only focusing on 2009–Present recaps. with links like this E.g https://www.nfl.com/games/jaguars-at-colts-2009-reg-1. Can somebody help me here? Jack Skellington III (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I really fucking hate when this happens. It seems like it's impossible to access any historical data from before 2011 right now. Makes me so grateful that someone from UEFA is actually going round fixing broken links to their website right now; if only the NFL could do the same. – PeeJay 19:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Protests against racial injustice + Kaepernick blackballing
The article should include content about (i) the NFL's suppression of a peaceful protest against racial injustice and police brutality, as well as (ii) its blackballing of the prominent figure behind those protests. (iii) In large part to appease right-wing politicians and commentators, including President Trump. And possibly also (iv) how the winds have shifted on the issue. Please consider how much content on the aforementioned issues should be allowed into this main article and how it should be phrased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and the league's response should be documented as well. Here are some sources that look good to start with - "111 N.F.L. Brains..." by The New York Times, "The NFL is going to insulting lengths to prove that CTE isn’t a problem" by SB Nation, NFL issues response to CTE research report" by NFL.com. As of now, there is only one brief mention of concussions in the article. isento (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * While these would both be sizable sections at History of the National Football League, keep in mind the section here is purposely short and sums up decades of history into paragraphs. There is a balancing concern here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, this is not the Chiefs’ first NFL Championship
Per the Hall of Fame link, the Chiefs are considered the NFL champions for 1969 even though the NFL Championship was also played that year. In the NFL’s playoff media guide, AFL titles from 1960-1969 are grouped with conference championships and so are NFL championship games from 1933-1969. Of course, the NFL and AFL were both leagues over those timeframes and both had league champions - but for that four-year period when both leagues played for a “world title”, the champion of the Super Bowl is considered to be the overall champion of the NFL despite the merger not being complete. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it was still called the Super Bowl too.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  16:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The NFL-AFL championships from 1966-69 are officially retroactively considered to be the first four Super Bowls, so this would be their second. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The name "Super Bowl" was used starting with the second one, so the question is not about whether the Chiefs have previously won the Super Bowl (having been the winners of Super Bowl IV), or that this is their second Super Bowl title, it's about whether or not that is considered an NFL championship since SB IV was the last one before the merger was complete; at the time the Chiefs were an AFL team (and the last AFL champions) and the Minnesota Vikings (who lost to the Chiefs) were the NFL champions going into the game (and are accurately credited as NFL champions for that season in their infobox). oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I linked above, the NFL basically regards the four-year interim as conference titles and the Super Bowl as the real overall title. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This brings up another question though, since this topic is somewhat being talked about now, I know I II III IV were officially “AFL-NFL Championships” when they were played, but since they are now retroactively called “Super Bowls” and there were only four anyway, I kinda feel like the “no_pre1970sb_champs” and “pre1970sb_champs” parameters should be removed and the information added to the “no_sb_champs” and “sb_champs“ parameters of the team Infobox. It seems kind of unnecessary to have separate parameters for these.-- Rockchalk 717 03:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this argument. Of course this year is the Chiefs' first NFL title; when they last won it, the leagues had not yet merged. Super Bowls I-IV were not the NFL title game – the NFL had its own title game, and while all Super Bowls since SB5 are indeed the NFL championship, that doesn't change the fact that the Chiefs had not won the NFL prior to Super Bowl LIV. To the same end, the Vikings did win the NFL championship in 1969, despite not winning the Super Bowl, as did the Colts the year before and the Chiefs and Raiders both won the AFL championship in 1966 and 1967 respectively. – PeeJay 16:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the posters here, other than PeeJay. The question is this: every NFL team has a listing for "League Championships," and then under that separately "NFL Championships" or "AFL Championships." There is a consensus on how to count league championships on every NFL team's page with the glaring exception of the Vikings.   The way that the Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts count "League Championships" is correct. In Super Bowls I, II, III, and IV, four teams lost the game: Chiefs, Raiders, Colts, and Vikings. The Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowl as a year in which they won a "League Championship." The only team that does that is the Vikings.  It's a mistake. The AFL and NFL legally merged on June 8, 1966 (see AFL–NFL merger), before Super Bowl I in January 1967 -- that's why there was a common draft starting in March 1967 NFL/AFL Draft. Also, when the merger was announced in June 1966, the joint announcement stated: that there would be "a World Championship game this season" (i.e., in January 1967 -- Super Bowl I)     Counting the Vikings' number of league championships as one (instead of zero) means that both the Chiefs and Vikings won the 1969 league championship, which of course is impossible.Ebw343 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is correct. As I said above, the NFL seems to regard these four transitional years as effectively being conference titles, not league titles. They also rank the pre-1966 NFL and AFL championships there for convenience reasons, but given the leagues were not merged there’s no reason to classify those differently. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The NFL regards them as such now because it makes it easier for comparison with current Super Bowls. The fact is that the NFL and the AFL were still separate leagues until the merger (that's what a merger is - things are separate until they merge), and the merger is considered to have happened in 1970. Teams that won their respective leagues in the time between the merger being agreed and actually taken place should not have their titles go unrecognised over a minor point of bureaucracy. – PeeJay 17:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you and every other poster above, except for PeeJay, and the pages of every NFL team (with the glaring exception of the Vikings) reflect this same definition of "League Championships." The merger was legally binding on June 8, 1966. That's why there was a common draft starting in March 1967 NFL/AFL Draft. Also, when the merger was consummated in June 1966, the joint announcement stated that there would be "a World Championship game this season" (i.e., in January 1967 -- Super Bowl I) The joint announcement on June 8, 1966 further clarified that "the plan will mean a true world champion of professional football." The joint announcement also makes clear that the only substantive change to occur in 1970 was that there would be a "single league schedule." This happened because the two leagues had prior TV contracts that prevented the "single league schedule" prior to the 1970 season.  For all these reasons, the Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowls I, II, and III, respectively, as a year in which they won a "League Championship."  (That makes sense, because the leagues legally merged in June 1966 and the Super Bowls I, II, III, and IV were the "World Championship games," as stated in the joint announcement made in June 1966.) The only team page that claims a "league championship" for a season in which they lost a Super Bowl is the Vikings. It's a mistake.
 * Moreover, if one were to accept PeeJay's suggestion, then for the 1966 season, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Green Bay Packers would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl I (then called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which Green Bay won. Of course, the Kansas City Chiefs' page does not make this mistake. Similarly, for the 1967 season, the Oakland Raiders and the Green Bay Packers would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl II (then called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which Green Bay won. Of course, the Oakland (now Las Vegas) Raiders' page does not make this mistake. Similarly, for the 1968 season, the Baltimore Colts and the New York Jets would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl III (by then no longer called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which the Jets won. Of course, the Baltimore (now Indianapolis) Colts' page does not make this mistake. In sum, counting the Vikings' number of league championships as one (instead of zero) means that both the Chiefs and Vikings won the 1969 league championship, which of course is impossible.

I agree with Oknazevad and PeeJay2K3. Seems like the rest of you are engaged in a bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There are plenty of WP:RS verifying the Vikings as 1969 NFL Champions. Do you have sources contradicting that? Are you also proposing that 1969 NFL season, 1969 NFL Championship Game, and List of NFL champions (1920–1969) should be edited to remove the Vikings as NFL Champions? Mojoworker (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are the Kansas City Chiefs awarded with two championships (2) for a single season: 1969 for total of "5" league championships, but the New York Jets article only lists one league championship (1) even though they won the AFL and Super Bowl in a single season: 1968 ???? User:Bergeronpp —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC) I'm going to have to correct all the articles myself to see that they are all consistent. BTW, the Chiefs just won their FIRST NFL Championship. However, it's their THIRD "league championship," the others being in 1962 and 1969. That's why we use the term "league championship" instead of NFL Championship, as not every "league champion" was an NFL Champion. Some were AFL Champions. 1966 should not be counted, as they lost the Super Bowl that year. Also, a team cannot win two "league championships" in the same year.2601:645:4301:C100:FDD4:7848:CCD8:A081 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, a team cannot win two league championships in the same year, but that isn't a problem because Super Bowls I-IV were not league championship games (the NFL and the AFL did not merge until the 1970 season, making Super Bowl V the first one to serve as the NFL league championship). – PeeJay 13:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, the AL and NL in professional baseball remained separate entities until they merged in 2000. Before, each league had their own respective president. Are we to argue that a team like the 1927 New York Yankees should rewarded with two (2) titles in a single year. If that were the case, then the New York Yankees should have 65 titles in their description box (b/c 25 World Series x 2 b/c AL pennants included, 11 AL pennants in which they would lose the World Series → before 2000, 2 World Series, 2 AL pennants in which they would lose the World Series → after 2000). The same should apply for AFL-NFL championships from 1966-1969, they were merely conference championships. User:Bergeronpp —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The way they count championships in baseball is of no concern to us. I have repeatedly asked for a reliable source such as a sports publication to show how championships are counted in the NFL, and I don't think any has yet been provided. I'm not just looking for a single source that says "Yep, the Vikings won the title in 1969", I'm looking for a source that lists all of a team's titles in one place. Then we'll know for sure. – PeeJay 15:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the best source I could find matching your description: Pro Football Reference. As for 1969, if scroll down to where it says "Minnesota Vikings," it lists 4 conferences champions, zero (0) Super Bowls, and zero (0) total league championships (includes pre-1966 NFL championships and Super Bowl titles 1966-present). This would indicate that 1969 was treated the same as an NFC conference title. User:Bergeronpp
 * Pro-Football Reference doesn't say that the Vikings have zero "league championships" it says they have zero "Chmp" and if you click through the link to the Vikings page, it says zero "Championships Won". And, since they're using a nebulous term they state (with an asterisk note) what their definition of "Championships Won" includes. But, we are specifically discussing "League Championships" here (and below in the next subsection). Mojoworker (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Chiefs Don't Have Five Championships
People can argue as to whether the Chiefs have three or four championships, but five? You can't count 1969 twice. Either their AFL Championship is what counts, or their Super Bowl Championship is what counts. Not both. Crediting them with five league championships even puts this article at odds with the Packers and Jets articles. The Packers have 13 championships, not 15. They didn't win two championships in 1966 and 1967. The Jets have 1 championship, not 2. They didn't win 2 championships in 1968. This is getting ridiculous.Politician818 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This aspect does need discussed. Leave the page at 5 while this is discussed. That is a good point, I do believe it should 3 league championships recognizing their 1962 AFL Championship, Super Bowl IV Championship, and Super Bowl LIV Championship. I do feel AFL and NFL titles from 1966-1969 are equal to conference championships. Being a Chiefs fan, as much as I’d like to pretend like they won 5, they didn’t. I feel like the article used to say 2 championships before they won the Super Bowl this year.-- Rockchalk 717 06:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It did! I’m gonna go ahead and move it back to 3. That doesn’t appear to have been discussed as a consensus previously.-- Rockchalk 717 06:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree! However, the Las Vegas Raiders article still lists 4 (counting 1967), as well as the Indianapolis Colts article listing 5 (counting 1968), and Minnesota Vikings counting 1969. These should be changed! User:Bergeronpp —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be four: 1962, 1966, 1969, and 2019. When this article is the only one that's different, it doesn't make sense to declare that this article should be chosen as canonical and the three pages for the Raiders, Colts, and Vikings (the three other teams that lost the four pre-merger Super Bowls) should be the ones changed. They all count the AFL or NFL league championships for those years. Why should it be different for the Chiefs? Mojoworker (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those should be changed as well. It really doesn’t make any sense to include use years they lost Super Bowls because the AFL/NFL Championship are considered on the same level as conference championships for the winning team, why should the losing to have one marked just because they lost the lost Super Bowl? I feel if the winning and losing team from Super Bowl 1-4 should have the AFL/NFL Championship marked but not including in the league championships parameter.-- Rockchalk 717 01:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pro-Football Reference (a reliable source and encyclopedia of NFL statistics) list Kansas City with 3 league championships, and Oakland/Las Vegas with 3 championships won and so on... (AFL-NFL championships from 1966−1969 should NOT count) User:Bergeronpp —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Like I said above in the previous section, Pro-Football Reference doesn't say that the Chiefs have three "league championships" it says they have three "Championships", and, since they're using a nebulous term they state (with an asterisk note) what their definition of "Championship" includes. I'm trying to understand the logic you guys are using to say the Chiefs have three "League Championships". To further the discussion, please explain which of 1962, 1966, 1969, and 2019 were and were not "League Championships" and which leagues they were champions of. Mojoworker (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think "league championship" and "championship" are being used interchangeably and mean the same thing. I mean, this site considers the Browns' championship in the AAFC to be "league championships" even though it was the All America Football CONFERENCE, not "League." I think the term simply implies "winning it all."Politician818 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC) In the same manner, winning an Ivy League Championship counts as a conference championship even though "League" is in the name, as it's not the same as a national championship, which is what "winning it all" means.Politician818 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The AAFC was a league completely separate from the NFL, and was the main competitor to the NFL in the late 1940s. The NFL ended up beating them out and eventually absorbed several of their teams. You wouldn't say the Alliance of American Football was an "alliance" and not a "league," correct? The first four Super Bowls were "world championships" because they pitted the champions of two separate football leagues in a game together (the game wasn't even called the Super Bowl at the time, it was called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"). The winners of the AFL and NFL championships those years were "league champions" and the winner of the Super Bowl that year added the title of "world champion".  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Pro-Football Reference definition of "Championships Won" ~ Super Bowls (1966−present) and League Championships (NFL, AFL) before Super Bowl era (pre−1966) User:Bergeronpp
 * Kansas City Chiefs should have 3 league championships: 1962 (AFL), 1969 (Super Bowl IV), and 2019 (Super Bowl LIV). As mentioned earlier in the discussion, before Kansas City's victory in the Super Bowl earlier this year, the article had always stated 2 league championships (1962 and 1969) User:Bergeronpp —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The AFL and NFL b/n 1966 and 1969 were in a sense "separate but equal" operating leagues of professional football with AFL-NFL merger announcement on June 8, 1966. User:Bergeronpp —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How pro-football-reference defines "championships won" does not automatically dictate how we define it on Wikipedia. PFR also defines "All-Pro" as only from the Associated Press, but per WP:NFLINFOBOX, we use it for the AP, Newspaper Enterprise Association, Pro Football Writers Association, Sporting News, etc. We use whatever reliable sources constitute as "championships won". At this point, with these discussions and edit wars seemingly never ending, I'd propose just splitting all of the different types of championships up and not having one "total". For the Chiefs, just say they won 3 AFL Championships and 2 Super Bowls and let the readers do the math if they desire.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, those first four Super Bowls are messy, and don't fit easily into what came before or after. I agree with Eagles247, let the reader count as they choose, or maybe we should just drop the count, and just list the various championships out like the Pro Football Hall of Fame does (although we should probably credit the Chiefs with Super Bowl LIV). Mojoworker (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting, for the Kansas City Chiefs article for example, remove "Championships Won: (5)" and instead ONLY list "AFL Championships: (3)" and "Super Bowls: (2)" and let the reader decide. If that's the case, I'm for that. User:Bergeronpp —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think that's what Eagles247 is also suggesting – except it would be removing "League championships (X)", which is what I think you meant, not "Championships Won: (X)". And it would require a small change to the infobox template. Mojoworker (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea for the Chiefs, Raiders, Vikings, and Colts articles.Politician818 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Can we please form some sort of a consensus on this? The Jets, Chiefs, Raiders, Colts, and Vikings articles are all at odds with the Packers article. The Packers article, however, gives sources for the Packers having thirteen championships (not including their 1966 or 1967 NFL Championshps). The solution should EITHER be to go back to not counting 1966-1969 NFL/AFL Championships OR to get rid of the "league championship" category and simply state the years that teams won their NFL/AFL and Super Bowl Championships. The articles, as they are currently, are unacceptable because of the inconsistency. Please notify me on my talk page that you replied here, as I will likely forget this talk page otherwise. Politician818 (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

National Football Conference
I have nominated NFC for | Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. Please present your views so that the article be improved fast.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Change infoboxes from "(pre 1970 AFL–NFL merger)" to "(pre–Super Bowl era)"
If you go to the Minnesota Vikings article, it states (1) league championship. However, they lost the Super Bowl to Kansas City. If you go the Chiefs article, it states (3) league championships but only counts the 1962 AFL championship, but NOT 1966 or 1969. So, if a club wins a Super Bowl between 1967 and 1970, they get rewareded with 1 league championship, but not two, and the loser still gets rewarded with league championship. I'm requesting a change on all NFL infoboxes to read: "(pre–Super Bowl era)" and only count league championships prior to the 1966 NFL/AFL season(s). A casual football fan might at first glance believe that the first Super Bowl was 1970 b/c it states (pre AFL-NFL merger). A clear distinction needs to be made. Bergeronpp (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to raise this at WT:NFL. There was a discussion there about this exact topic only a few months ago. Those articles flip-flop between various versions all the time so I couldn't remember what the correct one was when I made a change to the Minnesota Vikings article earlier, but I'm sure if you check back in the talk page archives there, you'll find the consensus we came to. I'm pretty sure we should keep it as "pre-AFL–NFL merger" rather than "pre-Super Bowl era" though. – PeeJay 02:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020
31 teams redskins retired 71.254.14.239 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) Wrong place to raise that issue. Go to the Redskins article talk page. (2) The talk page there answers your question. The team is still named the Redskins, as today's press release makes clear (it's even on Redskins letterhead). They will continue to use that name for the time being. Thus, the article shouldn't refer to the name "Redskins" in the past tense yet. 1995hoo (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! I know this is old now, but the Redskins franchise didn't retire, just the Redskins name. There are still 32 teams! BilCat (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Arrowhead Stadium sponsored name
Kansas City Chiefs' stadium name has to be changed to "GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium". GEHA signed a naming rights deal with the Chiefs. The information can be found in stadium's on article and this link: https://www.chiefs.com/news/chiefs-and-geha-announce-naming-rights-agreement-for-geha-field-at-arrowhead-sta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.231.97.190 (talk • contribs)
 * So surely the stadium is still called Arrowhead Stadium and "GEHA Field" is just the field the game is played on, not the surrounding infrastructure of the stadium? – PeeJay 19:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Stadium" remaining in the name suggests the playing field has a new name and not the stadium itself (facilities and whatnot), and the latter is what matters at the end of the day. The Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome's article was briefly located at Mall of America Field at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome before being reverted after a discussion (when the sponsorship was still going on), while Lane Stadium's field is called Worsham Field but the article remains as "Lane". Empower Field at Mile High seems to be a different case as Field in this context refers to the stadium and not just the playing surface. <b style="color: blue;">Zappa</b><b style="color: #FFD700;">⚡</b><b style="color: red;">Matic</b> 03:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There should be a section about NFL Controversies
There should be a section about NFL Controversies and a hyperlink for people to get to the NFL Controvries but on the main NFL wiki mentioning the NFL has had its controvsrises — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasmack45 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

NFL Controversies
Controversies and criticism

The NFL has been involved in a number of controversies over the years and has received a significant amount of criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasmack45 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That topic already exists at National Football League controversies. <b style="color: blue;">Zappa</b><b style="color: #FFD700;">⚡</b><b style="color: red;">Matic</b> 03:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Relocation
In the table of teams, consider rephrasing the relocation footnote; as for instance the 49ers have also relocated (from eg Kezar to Candlestick and now Levis) but are not tagged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.119.245 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing stadiums within the same market is not considered relocation for these purposes. oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds a perfect phrase to clarify with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.119.245 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeanKearns2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adam.davey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Super Bowl championships
The current page says the LA Rams have two championships but that the Green Bay Packers have 13, including pre-Super Bowl championships. For consistency, shouldn't the Rams' championships prior to the inception of the Super Bowl (1945, 1951) be included? 2600:1012:B029:4553:5257:6081:B9CD:ED10 (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that fact has been restored. Let's see if people actually pay attention and leave it in or of they ignore it and change it, again. oknazevad (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

NFL as sports league
It is actually considered an entertainment entity by the SEC and FTC. Sports leagues fall under stricter guidelines that the NFL doesn't have to mainly because of betting practices. 74.5.146.234 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

shorten first paragraph
the first paragraph feels extra long to me, should we break it around the part abt the schedule and make it into another paragraph beneath the infobox? Purpetic (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I concur and made a change. The whole schedule description seems way too detailed for the lead. I may make further trimmings. oknazevad (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Teams table
The "citations" that got removed from the table headers were due to the spirit of WP:CITELEAD, as they should be used in prose instead. In addition, the table was reorganized to include franchise owners and to remove stadium capacity, which I saw as being irrelevant to the team/NFL itself. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 17:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t think your edit is good. Cite lead applies to, well, the lead, not in-article tables - citations in tables are generally required; WP:HEADERS notes the present location as perfectly suitable. You’ve moved the table in front of prose for some reason, and your new bit on “principal owners” isn’t actually very helpful (especially for teams like the Green Bay Packers). Moreover, you split the table into two tables for some reason, meaning you can’t actually sort or see the entire league in one table. Frankly, I don’t see any real benefit to this. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I think owners are a better inclusion than capacity. But I agree generally with the reversion. Splitting the table was a bad move. And citations in column headers is fine and explicitly mentioned as appropriate in the guideline linked. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023
In the "media" section the article states that, "... the league's out-of-market sports package, which is only available to subscribers to the DirecTV satellite service." This information is out of date. Starting in the 2023 season the out-of-market sports package is only available to subscribers to Sunday Ticket through YoutubeTV. Jchall3 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Recoil16 (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Direct source from Youtube:
 * NFL official statement: Jchall3 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Club vs Team
The article seems to use the terms Club and Team interchangeably, but no description as to if there is a difference. Alielmi1207 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The club is the organization itself. The team is only the players on it. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 08:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of accessibility features
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 ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would this be an appropriate substitute for you key, or do you demand the unformatted key stay as well? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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 <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait--do you mean as part of the table itself? No, it's not tabular data and it is a definition list. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. 🤷 <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with the looks? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it looks very separated from the table, but either way its not a big deal. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2024
Add a * next to the Ravens because they relocated from Cleveland. 100.18.7.102 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm
— Assignment last updated by Calliehoffman (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)