Talk:United Football League (2009–present)/Archive 1

Proposed markets
I hope Hartford will be very sucessful, and so the NE Pats they can play there in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My general thoughts on the likelihood of the proposed markets becoming one of the first 8 teams (from most to least likely):
 * Los Angeles
 * Orlando
 * Sacramento
 * San Antonio
 * Oklahoma City
 * Las Vegas
 * Austin
 * Raliegh
 * Birmingham
 * Memphis
 * Louisville
 * Columbus

Also interesting that they didn't like Mexico City, although, maybe they are "guaranteed" a team right now(?)Dletter 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

League logo/additional info
I'm a newbie to posting in Wikipedia, here's the logo if someone wants to add it to the article:

Also, an article about Memphis being considered for a team:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanbuc (talk • contribs) 07:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Author Information

 * Just pointing out, we've reached mid-February without any official announcements. In fact, it seems like forever since we've received any information from anybody. Are things still on track? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.226.176 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The league is in the midst of finalizing several partnerships. We will have all information available to the public in the upcoming months. Everything is going well, but a lot of work lies ahead. Once the relationships we are working become official we will make sure the public knows UFL2008NY (talk)

Special Assistants
The league's special assistants do not need to be listed here. It doesn't add anything to the article. If anything, only the commissioner needs to be mentioned. --AW (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Logos
They got logos at http://www.unflf.com/webPages/teams.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachman12 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That link is to a different league, the UNFL, not the UFL. Dletter (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Citi Field, Rentschler Field
Please, do not remove the stadiums for Hartford and NY teams. They're proved on the source. Brady4mvp (Talk to me) 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, NY team dropped Citi Field. Brady4mvp (Talk to me) 23:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Citi Field is built as a baseball-only stadium. The field shape wouldn't allow football to be played. The field wouldnt fit right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.78.245 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed Information
Most of the information that was on this page is either old or unconfirmed, so until an official announcement is made by the league this page should be left as is. Sekuloguy (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an unconfirmed report that Brett Favre is signed to play for one of the teams in UFL after he retired from NFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issaccheriyathu (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Logo
Please do not put that logo on this page. Its quality is not up to Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Mazaradi F (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the logo - it appears to be perfectly up to Wikipedia standards. There are no quality issues that I could find.  What specifically do you feel is wrong with it? --Ericdn (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT change the article back to what it was
Stop changing the article back to a previous edit. Mostly everything there was of a speculative nature using old or uncited information. Wikipedia is not about speculation it is about facts. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazaradi F (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide concrete proof to back up your statements, and we will be happy to oblige. Per Wikipedia's policies, changes should not be made without giving a specific reason why.  In the meantime, if you continue to make edits and only say "Believe me, because I say I'm right," then it's likely your edits will be reverted. --Ericdn (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm changing the article, because there is no "concrete proof" of what was in the article before I changed it. The information that I had in the article is cited and the information that you keep reverting it back into is not. Mazaradi F (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you insist on editing articles without providing sources to back them up, it will be considered vandalism. If you proceed with this course of action, I will refer the article to the Wikipedia administration for arbitration. --Ericdn (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude what are you talking about that's exactly what I was doing. The information that was in the article was uncited and old. I was updating the article to reflect what is currently known about the league and I did cite my information! Mazaradi F (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are currently eight sources in the article to support the information currently in the article. As I said, if you can prove that your revision is better, then I will have absolutely no objections. --Ericdn (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because when your dealing with a new league such as this, information changes. If you were as into the league as I am you would know that. I have done my research on the league and you obviously have not. Visit uflaccess.com if you do not believe what I am saying. An official announcement has not been made by the league so how are we supposed to know what teams there will actually be? Answer me that.
 * I do not need to be "into the league" in order to understand proper editing, fairness, and using sources to support information. Your most recent edit provides one source, whereas the edit I reverted the article back to provides eight.  In addition, the fact that you deleted the logo, which has no flaws at all that I can see, leads me to believe that you simply hold a negative opinion about the league, and therefore want to disrupt the article and delete as much information from it as possible.  Once again, I ask you to provide concrete proof why your one source is better than the eight that currently exist.  If this matter can not be resolved, I recommend arbitration. --Ericdn (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please revert the article back
Please revert the article back to the way it was when I edited it. I provided concrete proof of what was in the article. The information that was in the article previously was uncited and not officially announced. Until the league officially announces how many teams there will be and things like that the article should remain as I had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazaradi F (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask only one thing: prove it. At the very least, follow Wikipedia guidelines and provide an edit summary.  If you can provide a link to even just one article, I will be very happy to assume that all of your edits have been in good faith.  If you need assistance in making edits properly, so this this kind of confusion no longer becomes a problem, I will be glad to help you. --Ericdn (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you not understanding? Look at the article when I finished editing it. The sources are right there in there in the article and I cited them correctly. Look at the page as it is now. It is full of uncited and old information. You reverted the article back to when it was full of rumors and speculative information. The article is about an upstart football league, so ther eare bound to be rumors floating around about it. What I did was get rid of the rumors on the article and make it so it was only based on published fact.
 * You cited one source. The article that I reverted to cites eight. --Ericdn (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I cited two first of all. And the two things I cited are NEW information that has just recently come out. Please direct me to a superior of yours, because you simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to things like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazaradi F (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration
Since Mazaradi F and I are deadlocked, I have decided to submit this article for arbitration per Wikipedia policy. I hope the experience and viewpoint of an experienced Wikipedia administrator will be able to end this dispute. --Ericdn (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the URL of my arbitration complaint: . I recommend Mazaradi F to visit the page and add his opinions regarding the arbitration, too. --Ericdn (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How do I make my case in the arbitration page? Where do I type in my point of view? Mazaradi F (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As of the time I'm typing this, our complaint is at the very bottom of the page. Edit the page as you would any other.  You will see "Statement by User:Mazaradi F" - this is where your statement goes.  We then wait for the arbitration committee to make a decision. --Ericdn (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration has been denied, and we have been advised to seek help through other channels. However, I have decided to wash my hands of this issue; I will no longer be involved in editing this page. --Ericdn (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ericdn, your Request for Arbitration was denied because RfAs are reserved as a means of last resort after going through the Request for Comment and Request for Mediation process. A Request for Comment should have been filed first. In any case, I offer a Third Opinion below.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I sense Mazaradi F's point of view is the cause of this disruption as made evident by the ridiculous arguments regarding the logo not being up to par with Wikipedia standards. Mazaradi F I strongly suggest that you go over our image use policy and for that matter our fair use policy before you proceed any further. Additionally, you claim that the article lacks sources and remove large portions of text with those very citations you claim the article lacks. You have been warned numerous times regarding your removal of content and sources and yet you continue to revert to your version, which contains but one source. If you persist in ignoring these warnings you will be blocked for vandalism for the continued removal of cited content. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I'll just remove everything that doesn't have an article cited. Mazaradi F (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unjustified removal of content per WP policy will also constitute as vandalism. Per Verifiability, it is suggested that you add the fact template for an unsourced statement. If a source has not been provided after a limited period of time, you are free to remove the uncited content. Cheers. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrible Article
Congratulations Wikipedians. You helped restore an article with the worst, out of date information possible. Great Job. Terribly ugly, and misinformed article. It's a shame that a fan of the league such as myself, can't edit the article to portray the actual information that is still true about the league. Mazaradi F (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might just need to let this one go. People have given you plenty of advice about what to do here.  Instead of challenging existing sources, you merely delete them.  Instead of offering reasons why the information is incorrect, and offering proof as to why this is so, you simply delete information and sources.  You delete a logo that many people feel is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia.  My advice to you: just quit while you're ahead.  You may feel that you're a fan, but the general opinion around here is that you're not, and that's the reason why you've been making so many changes to this article.  Unless you want to run the risk of being blocked or banned from Wikipedia, just let it go.  If you are a fan, there are constructive ways to solve this problem.  (Your methods, unfortunately, have been far from constructive.)  If you're not a fan, then you've had your fun, and now put this article into the hands of others.  In our brief encounters, I've seen that you can be a civil person to talk to, so please take my advice under consideration. --Ericdn (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm getting fed up, because I've taken the advice of other users. I've placed and  templates on sections of the article where they're needed and guess what...they were removed.  I don't know why. I want someone to find me an article to prove that the teams listed in the "Teams" section have been officially announced. Please find that article for me then we'll talk. Mazaradi F (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's wonderful that you're adding flags in the article, but the important thing is to use them appropriately. I'm going to be honest with you - I have no intention of doing research on this topic in order to write this article "the way it should be written."  If you don't like someone's edit, discuss the matter with that person.  Merely complaining about the fact that your edits are not being seen as definitive will not help matters.  As I said, there are constructive ways to deal with this problem, and there are unconstructive ways.  You are choosing only the unconstructive ways, and this has left you in a minority of one.  As I said, if you continue with unconstructive edits, you run the risk of being blocked or banned.  I don't want to see that happen to you.  Please consider your edits carefully.  If you disagree with someone undoing your edits, discuss the specifics with that person.  In the meantime, if necessary, I will reinvolve myself in maintaining this page to Wikipedia's standards.  Please don't increase my workload - I'm busy enough already. --Ericdn (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In the meantime, if necessary, I will reinvolve myself in maintaining this page to Wikipedia's standards. Please don't increase my workload - I'm busy enough already." Well it looks like you have some more work to do then, because this article is not up to wikipedia's standards. It is based on speculative, and unreliable articles - according to my research that is not what Wikipedia is about. That's why I removed those parts of the article and re-made it with recent and formal news. Mazaradi F (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but don't say we didn't warn you. Discuss your changes before you make them.  That's what the talk page is for.  If you're going to continue to simply delete at will, you will soon find yourself in violation of the Three-revert rule, and this could end up being an Edit war, if it isn't already considered that.  As I said, you're in a minority of one here, and you've done nothing to convince us that we should accept your statements as verifiable facts.  If you can do that, then there will be no problem. --Ericdn (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with discussing changes before I make them. In fact after I post this message I will open up a discussion regarding the article.Mazaradi F (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good! It looks like we might finally be making progress.  May I offer another piece of advice?  Be specific when offering sources.  Remember, this is an encyclopedia.  Everything should be verifiable. --Ericdn (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Mazaradi F is already in violation of the Three-revert rule and will be reported momentarily. Now Mazaradi after every unconstructive edit you've made and after hours of continuous disruption, you have the audacity to call this a terrible article?! Mazaradi, it is quite obvious that this little rant is in response to the fact that every piece of the article that you removed has since been cited, which therefore leaves you with nothing to remove. Enough with this nonsense. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right - this has been going on for almost four hours already! I have to say, enough is enough.  I've been trying to give Mazaradi F the benefit of the doubt at every turn, if he does want to be helpful, or at least to give him a way out if he just got caught up in a prank more deeply than he anticipated.  But how much longer can we keep going back and forth with this?  I think we've all been more than patient.  If he refuses to listen to us... what more can we do?  Thank you, 3bulletproof16, for your help. --Ericdn (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If this was a prank then it would be an awful one. Who would spend this much time on a prank lol. I, unlike the you two have done my research on this league. If you want to see why I am saying that this information is old and unreliable please visit uflaccess.com and compare the most recent information with these 1 to 2 year old articles. Mazaradi F (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what changes have you done to this article to make it accurate and up-to-date? The only things you've managed to do is remove more than 2/3 of the page and waste the time of numerous editors. Your argument is baseless. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to replace out-of-date information, then replace it with more recent information. Don't, however, delete it and replace it with nothing.  Can't you see - that is the problem! --Ericdn (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, an article should be cited by divers reliable sources. The entire article itself cannot be cited by a single source. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning and Wikifying article
After a long night of editing, reverting, and arguing let me open the real discussion on this article. This article is about an upstart football league, which is looking to compete with the NFL. I think that this article, because it based on a league similar to the NFL, should be based on the outline of the NFL article. My first beef with this article is the "League Office" section. In my opinion this does not belong in the article, because if someone was looking for this information they could go to the leagues official website. In the NFL article, "League Office" is not a section, therefore I don't think it should be one here. Also another section that I don't think belongs here is the "Innovations" section. I don't mind that information being in the article, but I don't think it needs it's own section. This information can be summarized and listed in the beginning of the article. The last thing for now is the teams section. The only team that has been confirmed is the Las Vegas team, because it was announced that Jim Fassel will be the head coach. Therefore until there is solid news such as this about the other teams I think this section should also be deleted for now. Does anyone have any opinions about this? Mazaradi F (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're getting down to the important details. This is good.  Let's go step-by-step, shall we?  "Upstart football league which is looking to compete with the NFL: This is already indicating some bias, which should be avoided.  "Upstart" has a negative meaning associated with it, and the "competing" part makes it sound like you feel no one should even dare compete with the NFL.  Based on NFL article: I see no problem with this, assuming all the information fits in the same way.  "League Office" section: Instead of simply ignoring this topic and sending people to another site, why not use that site as a reference and include the necessary information here?  That is why Wikipedia exists in the first place!  Innovations: Perhaps you can give us an example of how you would rewrite the information in this section, and post it here for all to read and comment on before putting it in the article itself?  Teams: Don't add, change, rearrange, or delete anything without providing a verifiable source.  Merely deleting older sources, which is all you've been doing so far, is not going to help, and is considered vandalism.  I hope these suggestions have helped.  In short, try out any potential changes to the article here first, and when there's a pretty good concensus that they belong in the article, then they can be moved there.  And don't forget: SOURCES! --Ericdn (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am currently in the process of cleaning the page up a bit. It'll be done in a little while so we can proceed from there.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 04:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do we get a paid vacation once all this is taken care of? :) --Ericdn (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure would be nice... XP -- Unquestionable Truth -- 11:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First off - I enjoy this type of constructive debate, because in the end it is better for the article itself. You are right in saying that my language seems bias, but those weren't phrases I planned on using in the article. It was just the basis for me saying that the outline for this article should be based on the outline of the NFL article. In regards to the league office topic, I really don't think the names of CEO's and VP's should be in the main article. The commissioner is important, but he is already listed in the article. I would like to get the opinions of more people thought however. As for the innovation section that is something that I will mull over throughout the night. When I find a way to incorporate it in a better way I will write it here. Now with regards to the team section: There is no source that states that these aren't official teams, because there are no sources that state that they are official teams. Do you know what I'm saying? There hasn't been an official announcement by the league to prove that their will be teams in New York, Orlando, San Francisco, Hartford, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. I don't mind listing them as potential markets, but listing them as actual teams is just incorrect. I'm hoping for some more opinions on these topics. Mazaradi F (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is quite difficult for us to infer what you plan to write in the article if it's going to be very different than how you write on this page. Please try to be consistent, simply to avoid any questions later.  As for the inclusion of CEO's and VP's, I'm perhaps not the best one to ask about this information.  In general, though, I believe in including, rather than exlcuding, information, simply to be on the safe side.  I'd like to hear from others on this topic, but, in the meantime, unless there is a general feeling that this information is not necessary in the article, my suggestion is to keep it in, at least for the time being.  I'm glad you're going to give the "Innovations" section some thought, and we will all be interested to read your suggestions about it.  Giving it some thought is certainly a good idea.  As for cities which may or may not have teams, I think your idea is a good one.  If there's enough evidence to say that a city may have a team, but there's no definite decision, then, again, at least for the time being, I think the city should be included, with a specific mention (or in another category) that a decision is pending.  If, however, there isn't even official talk of these cities having teams, then they should not be included.  In short, official but pending is acceptable for inclusion, while rumor is not.  Cheers!  --Ericdn (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's been a long day so I'm going to stop posting for now. Hopefully more people will become involved with the article and share their opinions. Mazaradi F (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think it's been a long day for you, then I can say I've literally had a sleepless night. St. Petersburg, where I live, is three hours ahead of UTC; in contrast, New York is five hours behind UTC.  So, I've literally spent all night on Wikipedia, and, I have to say, this article was one of the main reasons.  I know your intent wasn't to give me a sleepless night, but... at least today's Sunday.  So, are we agreed... we'll give this article some thought, sleep on it, and share information for collaboration before posting it.  I promise - with the help of more people, this article will be acceptable to everyone involved.  In the meantime, good night! --Ericdn (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for keeping you up =P. And absolutely from now on it will be discuss then change instead of change and discuss. Good Night. Mazaradi F (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Change
Whoever changed the article around and cleaned it up did a nice job. There's just a few things I want to clarify. I won't change it until I find an article, but the league has narrowed the potential franchises down to six markets and those are Orlando, San Francisco, New York, Hartford, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. It is also not a guarantee that all of those 6 will be given a franchise. A radio report recently stated that the league might only include 4 teams in the Inaugural season. That is not solid information however just a rumor so until an official report comes out for the league no changes will be made in regards to that. Good Job thought. Mazaradi F (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That was me. And the teams section was based on information from the UFL's official website, which lists the cities that are currently on this page. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great Job first of all. On the website it lists them as potential markets so I added potential in there. The League doesn't do a great job of updating its website. I'm looking for the article right now that states that Monterey and Salt Lake City were eliminated as potential first year markets. I'll post it here first before I think about putting it in the article. Mazaradi F (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Combined Teams
For the upcoming UFL season 3 out of the 4 teams will be multi-city teams. Las Vegas/Los Angeles, New York/Hartford, and San Francisco/Sacramento. Therefore the separate articles for these teams should be combined with one another. Mazaradi F (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article for New York/Hartford UFL is up, and I proposed that the Hartford UFL article should be deleted on its talk page. Sekuloguy (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the source article? The link that was used on this page leads to an Error site. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the changes you've made until the source can be provided.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the official press release. http://ufl-football.com/press/2009/02/09/united_football_league_announces_ufl_premiere_season_to_kick_off_october_2009 Mazaradi F (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are currently 4 teams in the UFL, and their will only be 4 for the entire inaugural season. Right now there are 9 teams listen in the article. 67.83.195.10 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the article, again to reflect the 4 teams, because I checked the citation and it is working it leads you to the press release with the naming of the teams. Mazaradi F (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

History
I'm planning on writing a nice history section using articles from when the league was announced in May of 2007 up until the announcements from a couple of days ago. I plan on getting it done either tonight or sometime tomorrow. Mazaradi F (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Team Names
Please do not change team names to UFL North, UFL south, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standleylake40 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would someone do that? It was suggested that the UFL might go this route when naming the teams, but it is by no means official. Mazaradi F (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Title Change
Does anyone else think that the time has come to drop the (2008) at the end of the title. Now that the league has announced, it is almost guaranteed that this thing will get off the ground. Who will play and coach in the UFL?

The (2008) is to avoid confusion with the United Football League from the 60's.


 * I understand that, but now that it is an active league I think we should take the (2008) off. The (1960) will still stay on the old one, but now that this league is active I think it should be removed. And at the top their is a redirect to the 1960's league anyway. Standleylake40 (talk

WikiProject
I've proposed that a United Football League Wikiproject be created. Please help by showing your support. Standleylake40 (talk
 * A project like this would be too small for it to be justified. All things relating to the UFL have now been taken over by WP:AMF -- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)