From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox

There is one infobox, company, that accepts other infoboxes as modules under its module field. So, saying that you are reducing to one infobox is not correct. Using the company with sports league infobox as a module is appropriate as it is an one entity league. As the company information is the league's information. Spshu ( talk) 15:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Spshu: I believe @ Oknazevad:'s edit was meant that the infobox should be about the league and not the company, similar to how XFL (2020) has the league infobox only and not as a module within Alpha Entertainment (the company name that owns that league). I do not know the exact rules, but it does seem the primary infobox should be about the subject that best meets the title of the article, in the this case just the league and no company infobox. In my opinion, the infobox-in-an-infobox looks like over complicated clutter and infoboxes should just be a summary of the basics of the article's subject (ie the league). Yosemiter ( talk) 16:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Exactly. The most specific infobox is the only one that should be used. That the league is owned by an LLC holding company should be mentioned in the text, but that does not mean the over-broad company infobox should be used on the article. oknazevad ( talk) 17:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
As to XFL (2020), that is WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as the article should not exists as it is a)proposed; b) continuation of the first XFL since 1) the WWE had the trademarks (common law and registered) 2) one of major owners/founder/driver is involved, Vince McMahon, just in a different business structure (his ownership is direct instead of indirect); 3) he stated that it was a revival/continuation as the the original run of the XFL triggered his plans to revive. Perhaps because it is too an one entity league. See Cheddar (TV channel) were the module feature works reasonable fine (company with TV channel). If the league ibox had a module field, I would have nested company within the league ibox, but there is no module field.
The one infobox at the top ("usually in the top right of an article") is a recommendation not a "shall", but unfortunately some editors take it as absolute with no wiggle room, thus the merger/module use. The look can be change by moving up the logo from the sports league module to company. With out the nesting feature and not a absolute to only include at the top, I would have placed the company ibox in the business section. But I have run into editors that take the "usually" as an absolute any wiggle room with the two of you? As far as I know this helps DBpedia as it extracting information from the information boxes. Spshu ( talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Spshu: I am not going to get into a discussion the merits of XFL (2020) here as it is not the place for it. (It has been thoroughly discussed already, I only referred to that XFL page because it is recently proposed, just like this one. I could have referred to any league operated by a single business entity, such as Arena Football League being operated by Arena Football One, LLC.) I was pointing towards consistency across articles on Wikpedia as I do not know of any league or even sports teams on WP that uses its business entity name over its common league or team name.

As for OSE, that refers to content of an article, not style and format, hence my link to MOS:INFOBOX. Per the MOS: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." (bolding for emphasis) I would also assume a bit that it would be a WP:SURPRISE to a reader to open a league page and see the title of the infobox be primarily titled after some random company name.

As for a second infobox in the Business section, I personally am fine with it and have actually used that technique on a few occasions. It could hep DBpedia. The only part I would have against it is that it does not really summarize the section any more than what is already there (a list of investors involved with the LLC). I am not one one of the editors who deals in absolutes because WP:NORULES, but I do care about usability and readability (as in less clutter) over database-type functionality. Yosemiter ( talk) 15:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Franchise Associations

I think it's important that we demonstrate in simple table form which colleges, NFL, and CFL teams "feed" into various AAF teams, as this is the primary draw of this league for many fans: to see its favorite collegiate and NFL players re-united. It's a first step in figuring out "who should I cheer for?" We need to be careful what word we use. Maybe "associations" instead of "affiliates"? But I do think we need this in table form. Still not sure how to list colleges well/concisely. Mathninja ( talk) 14:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

This should be listed in their individual team articles more than here. If we decide to have it a part of the team table then boil it down to the states, partial states then list any individual outlier. Then have some message to see a full list at the team's article. As the states listed would only based on those assigned, thus unlisted colleges would not count (just to simplify it for the table). However if only one state college is listed at all (and you know more football colleges exist) list that one as an outlier, ie. individually. Partial states would be when the colleges in one state is split between teams. Try to take a look at how they are split, perhaps they split the state along private/public, Power 5/Group of 5, etc. For example, if Ohio is split between two teams and you see the list shows private colleges for one team then indicate "Ohio private" and the other "Ohio public". If no clear divide exists then just list for each team "partial Ohio" or "Ohio (partial)". Perhaps a larger table built here could help us boil down the list to the states.
Association and assignment list are used in the news article. Based on AAF's usage "player allocation" something, "teams". So, association is fine. Spshu ( talk) 15:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I really don't like it being in the chart of teams. Look at the team list in the American Hockey League, NBA G League, or any of the leagues of Minor League Baseball, and not how the affiliated teams are listed. This looks like that. The problem is, unlike the AHL, G League or MiLB, there is no actual ties between the AAF and the NFL of CFL. To use the same formatting can far too easily be construed as there being such a link. I have no problem with including the information in the article, but I do not think it should be in the main team chart as though it were formal ties between the leagues. oknazevad ( talk) 16:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Local Broadcast Affiliates

Would it make sense to add local radio and TV affiliates to the Media section of the page. For example:

- Orlando Apollos: iHeart’s Real Radio WTKS-FM 104.1 FM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petervcook ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC) reply

No, as the individual teams have their own article and this article is about the league. Spshu ( talk) 16:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Radio

The Sirius radio deal is league-wide so I felt there was no good reason to remove info about it, especially being cited. As for the relevance of the individual team's local radio deals, that's different. I say there's no problem leaving it in the article if only for the wikification factor. If others feel differently though, understood. MostlyTexasArticles ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Missed that the first couple of times added that the Sirius deal was league wide. How ever, the source was not the best in using Sirus blog as a source. Readded with better source. Spshu ( talk) 18:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Alright. Well, right now, there's three different editors who've expressed their feelings that the local affiliates are a reasonable addition to the article, and then one who feels it's not. Is there a relevant guideline in the style manual that dictates it not have the local info? I'd understand it being excessive if the league was ANY bigger, but at only 8 teams, it seems like it's a fine addition that would maybe guide the interested to the articles on their local radio stations. I'm gonna go head and just mention, that's all, that local deals exist, without going into any detail. I feel that has to be a reasonable addition. I'll be back after my lunch (2 hours or so) and add some citation to that line. MostlyTexasArticles ( talk) 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Was or is?

The opening sentence of the article says the the AAF "was" a professional American football league, and the second sentence says it "consisted" of eight teams. Yet, the rest of the article speaks of the league as if it stills exists. This contradiction needs to be corrected. Is the league officially defunct or not? If not, then "was" needs to be changed to "is" and "consisted" needs to be changed to "consists" and the rest of the article's wording needs to reflect present tense, until the league's status changes. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:28D8:7198:96B3:F03 ( talk) 13:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Agreed, especially since the last sentence of the lead says that the organization hasn't yet acknowledged whether the AAF is finished or not. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I would say that it is inactive, since only the season has been cut short. The the league exist ("is") while the number of teams is past tense. It will be completely defunct when they either announce they are defunct or the media indicateds that there is no way for them to resume operations. Spshu ( talk) 21:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
"Suspension of football operations" does not mean folding or cessation of football operations, so I've updated the lead to reflect the Alliance is an active league for the time being. We will know one way or another if the league folds, it will presumably be covered in the media. Eagles  24/7  (C) 01:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply
All other pages for AAF teams mention that all AAF teams have folded. If the teams are folded, why isn't the league? [[User:Superta101}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superta101 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Those should be updated as well, I haven't gotten around to it yet. Eagles  24/7  (C) 01:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
League exists independent of the teams, despite being a unitary league (all teams are owned/part of league) as the league existed before the teams were formed. The league could still be looking for funding to give it a go for 2020. Spshu ( talk) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
ProFootballTalk reports that the AAF has confirmed the end of Operations and has filed for bankruptcy. Time to put this league into the "Was" category. Hawkahaulic08 ( talk) 20:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Companies can file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and still operate as a business after reorganization, I see nothing in their statement that the league has folded. PFT says they've confirmed it's done forever but that's not what the statement says. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
My bad, PFT omitted the part that says they've ceased all business operations. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

Please change "is" to "was." Please change founded area to "February 9, 2019." Please add a "Ceased Operations Area" and put "April 2nd, 2019" BjBob566 ( talk) 22:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Please see the previous section. oknazevad ( talk) 23:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

"If the AAF returns for a second season by 2020, it will find itself in direct competition with a revived XFL, which is announced to begin play in 2020.[35]"

Weird to hold on to such a thought. The league is dead. They're not returning. Ever. Time to lift protection and switch "The AAF is" to "The AAF was" and accept it. It's over. 98.4.103.242 ( talk) 02:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: please provide reliable sources that "the league is dead". DannyS712 ( talk) 02:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019: Champions

Please change parts of the page to reflect the Orlando Apollos as champions, until either 1) the league folds, when they would be champions for the season; or 2) the league unsuspends operations. 174.101.199.164 ( talk) 01:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 01:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

There was no champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.56.33 ( talk) 23:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The roster list of players on the teams is not correct

The AAF does not longer exist, so the roster should include the players that played in its lone season of existence for future reference. Please your thoughts of why any change on the roster list is being reverted. Tecmo ( talk) 13:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Alliance_of_American_Football&oldid=1204736567"