Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football

Canadian football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Canadian football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canadian football and the Canadian Football League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Canadian footballWikipedia:WikiProject Canadian footballTemplate:WikiProject Canadian footballCanadian football articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I don't understand the Esk's "community ownership"! What does it mean? I'm in the community? Do I own them? Kevlar67 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered by own question. See the new Ownership section on Edmonton Eskimos.Kevlar67 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have developed a suggested WikiProject Canadian football/Player pages format page to help improve and standardise player articles. It is drawn largely from WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format, Template:Biography, and some of the recognised good Canadian football, American football, and sport biography articles.

Comments, suggestions, and editing welcome. Once agreed on, we can suggest following it on the WikiProject Canadian football page. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Newest project member here, with a few questions and comments (and don't be surprised if I have many more!), specifically about the CFL club season pages. I've been working sporadically on 2007 Calgary Stampeders season, and was hoping to get some feedback.

I haven't been able to find an agreed-to base format for season pages (as this is to player pages), therefore I decided to be bold and made it up as I went along. I copied a great deal of the formatting from 2007 Toronto Argonauts season, and tried to expand upon it as much as I could, including the subsections for each game, complete with a boxscore (I haven't added a detailed written account of each game yet). After having taken a peek at 2007 Washington Redskins season for inspiration, I also added a complete schedule of the regular season, and other relevant information to each game's subsection (up to now including attendance, kickoff time and televisers; the Redskins article also includes weather information and the television announcers, if known). So far so good, in my opinion.

I've also been trying to source everything, to the point I think I went a little overboard.

I've also added a statistics section, not unlike 2007 Washington Redskins season, with a few tweaks to make the underlying table comply with Canadian football (adding columns for singles on kicking plays, for example), and generally trying to make it follow the format of the CFL's own statistics where allowed (I haven't for example added a detailed breakdown of stats per game per player, but if one wanted to they could, as the CFL keeps a lot of stats). I still haven't added defensive statistics.

Now, after adding this content, the page is closing in on 40 kb. It's enormous! And it's not even close to being 'done'. What content do you believe is and is not appropriate for the article? Should I just keep plugging away? I feel it's getting a little cumbersome to read.

Any comments are appreciated. --93JC (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I would certainly not criticise your referencing. It is what all our articles should look like. As you mentioned, it is definitely in need of some prose and critically lacking an introduction. There is, of course, a duplication of the information in the season schedule table and in the weekly recaps. Perhaps the schedule table is unnecessary? I recognise that it is an at-a-glance review of the results, however.

I would also appreciate any comments you have on the player pages format page. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an infobox for active American football players, that is inclusive of all the major football leagues. It includes entry and debut information on af2, Arena Football League, National Football League, oh, and the Canadian Football League. As well, it contains draft information for the NFL and CFL. It also includes a place to list the players high school, which then has a place for awards, and highlights. Then the college section is the same as before, except it has it's own highlights and awards section. As does the professional section (originally the default section). It also includes six stat labels for the AFL, NFL, CFL and af2, in alphabetical order. As well as, an expanded external stats link section, to decrease the number of links in the external section. Not to mention the external links section is placed in alphabetical order, for the most part, not to mention a neatly organized hour glass shape, which was mostly by luck. Crash Underride 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's laudable but one already exists at Template:Infobox gridiron football person and it is also able to include coaches and administrators and those who move on from one position to another. I suppose (by looking at your contributions since you kept the name a secret) that you speak of Template:Infobox American football active in which case I have one minor and one other major concern. The minor concern is that this project is unconcerned with American football but rather Canadian football so it is a rather unfortunate name if it's to include players of Canadian football. Secondly, and more importantly, I presume that this is another two-infobox schemes(1/2) where you have to completely change the infobox to Infobox retired when they're no longer active then switch back again to active when they decide to return to playing. That is a preposterous idea, in my opinion, and I cannot support such a system. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a) I didn't keep it a secret, I forgot to put it in that's all (it's Template:Infobox American football active), and b) American football and Canadian football are basically the same thing. You have players going from the NFL to the CFL all the time. Don't make me bring up Ricky Williams, John Avery, or Warren Moon. Also, I hadn't thought about a retired one. I have one at Template:Infobox Arenaretired that has places for their positions as a player as well as a coach, so in the grand scheme it doesn't have too be changed. Crash Underride 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a secret was my lame attempt at being humorous. While it's true that players move between the leagues and that the sports have many similarities, it's not the same and you cannot call Canadian football American football. It's only a minor problem since the name can be easily changed or a redirect made. My big concern is not about making a retired infobox, it is about having different infoboxes at all for active and retired. The infobox should not have to replaced when the player retires or moves on to coaching. What is wrong with Template:Infobox gridiron football person? No offence, but it seems superior to both NFLactive and American football active to me as a generic football infobox for players, coaches, and admins in any of the leagues. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, that's your opinion. And mine is, personally, it's bland and doesn't look good at all. Oh, on a side note, could people please take a look at players from West Virginia University that play in the CFL, such as Lance Frazier? People write as the University of West Virginia, which is not the name of the school. Crash Underride 23:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. I will try to remember to watch for that. I corrected one passing reference at 2008 Hamilton Tiger-Cats season but I don't see any more. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had to correct ALOT for the Lance Frazier article, it had like three or four that were wrong. lol Yeah the University of West Virginia is different from West Virginia University. The UWV was a board of education or something like that and WVU is the acutal school. Crash Underride 15:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An obviously American NFL fan User:Chrisjnelson has been monkeying around with the CFL rosters, namely Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster. He does not seem to understand that convention is that rosters are listed numerically not alphabetically. Also I let him know that convention for players is that we use the CFL Player infobox not the NFL one. What can I do with him as he seems insistent on this one? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well first of all, I just want them to be consistent. I brought over the template we use for the NFL rosters and we've always done them alphabetically, so that's what I did here. As it stands, 7 of the 8 (excluding sask) are alphabetical in the CFL and 32 of 32 in the NFL. I think there's a better argument for them being alphabetical.

2. Also, Template:Infobox NFLactive may have the word "NFL" in the name, but that's not what it's for. it's an all-gridiron football template and has been updated to be used with leagues like the CFL. You can designate guys as import/non-import, link the CFL.ca stats, add CFL draft info, etc.

Also, you can drop the arrogance just because I'm new to this CFL stuff. You were too at one point.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent as to what though? Every roster I have seen on every sports page either has the list sortable (which could be made if I knew the code to do so) or has them numerical. In fact, all CFL rosters were numerical until your edits were made. So convention seems to stipulate that they should be done so correct? I am not trying to be arrogant and I apologize if the has been what is coming across. But you'll find CFL fans are very protective of their distinct game and do not want the overt Americanization from the NFL. So I'd say as a measure of peace between us and overt friendship between nations, why not leave the CFL as numerical? The NFL and CFL have little to do with each other in the real world, so making similarities between them here may not be right the right move. Also, if standardization is your goal, then all the AFL, af2 and other indoor leagues need to be changed correct?

For the time being until a proper discussion is made and voted on, why not leave the Riders roster as I have had it during the entire season? If we vote and consensus is to change then we will do so. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetization has nothing to do with Americanization. It's not like alphabetical order is a distinctly American trait. I just think alphabetical is easier because if you're trying to find a random player, it'll be easier to find him without knowing the number.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, all the AFL and af2 rosters should be done the same way. I've done some work on them but not a ton.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See DoubleBlue's talk page, him and I had a conversation about this a few weeks back and I think I came up with a solution based on comments here and made by him:

1. Do what the baseball guys did, when a guy retired instead of switching to NFLretired, just remove currenteam, and number and you've got the same kind of thing.

2. Keep gridiron player template for ones that have it but in future change it back

3. Numerical order couldn't be stupider, alphabetical is better Plus it helps me with my A, B, C's :-)

4. Why should the Riders template be different from the others and be the odd one out I know how it feels :-( let's just make it alphabetical

--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a strong preference for alphabetical or numerical order. There are good arguments for both ways but consistency with other rosters seems like a good idea for the ease and expectation of the reader. It is not possible to add sortable because of the way the roster table is currently constructed and I don't feel it's worth the time and effort to figure out and construct a way to do it.

I agree with using {{Infobox gridiron football person}} (and its {{Infobox CFL player}} redirect) on CFL and multi-league players. I feel it is better formatted and NFLactive still has some NFL bias but most of all, I seriously disagree with the multiple boxes NFLactive/NFLretired/NFLcoach/etc. It is ridiculous to me to completely change the infobox when the player retires (and returns). DoubleBlue (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to take the time and effort to do figure out the sortability issue if it can be done. Basically, I think some minor modifications could be made to the NHL template (see Template:Los Angeles Kings roster) and it could be done. But if the idea is to alphabetize this and the other major CFL contributor (DoubleBlue) says we should do this, I will go with it. My major issue I guess is more when outsiders decide things before asking the crowd, it seems like a bull running through a china shop to me. I've seen how democracy works over at the Wikiproject:Ice Hockey and like that consensuses are made before changes are. But then again, the Riders have always been a little different, why not translate that here ;) Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a go if you like but the problem I see with the LA Kings roster is that it is not divided nicely by Offence/Defence/Special teams and position and making it sortable would put it in a peculiar and unhelpful alphabetical order (C, CB, DB, FB, G, etc.). I agree with discussing major changes first and thank you for taking the discussion here but it is also permissible to follow WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I don't like Gridiron player is because it is too obstrusive but like I said just remove the team and number which looks exactly like a retired player. I believe that the Gridiron player infobox should not be used in case the player leaves Canada for the NFL then like with these diffs [1] and [2], so if the NFL uses it, then the CFL and AFL should follow suit, because most kids grow up saying they want to be in the NFL so any chance they got they're gonna take it so let's make it simpler for switches by synchronizing the infoboxes.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is more obtrusive than NFLactive. There is no need to change to NFLactive when a player moves to the NFL, in fact, Gridiron sports person was designed for multi-league use. Your strange (and untrue) comment about kids saying they want to be in the NFL does not mean anything for designing a Wikipedia infobox. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By obstrusive I mean, absolutely huge, because it contains a lot of meaningless junk The military part I really don't get then like I said on your talk page the entering of teams and years is more challenging, plus from what I can see 20 lines for draft stuff (NFLactive has 3 at the most), then six stats values, which is probably too much for it, I sort of like the coaching part, but the flagicon could go the hand and pass style can both leave plus it would be nice if just like the NFLactive it came out and said what team they play for. Oh and don't mind the kid comment, I'm just extremely tired :-)--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused parameters should be removed on any particular article. Flagicons are decidedly not part of the infobox and should be removed on sight MOS:FLAGS. Military was a requested addition for a few players who were equally notable for military service. I use a reduced blank version to paste in articles and add extra parameters as required. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of weird to add military fields for a few people. Aren't there other infoboxes for that? If Dan Marino wins the Nobel Prize (hey it could happen) we wouldn't add parameters to the retired infobox.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 12:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is partly at Template talk:Infobox gridiron football person#Adding military info. Apparently multiple infoboxes is frowned upon by WP:FAC. I was attempting to find a way to add a "other infobox" section to the template (more or less unsuccesfully) when someone just did the obvious thing and added the parameters to the infobox. I agree that it's not exactly germane to football players but it's also harmless and does not need to be included in the normal list of used parameters. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well even if it's "frowned upon", I imagine adding parameters to an infobox with real no connection to the infobox's purpose would be even more frowned upon.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't entirely disagree but it doesn't really make any difference in normal use and adds functionality for some uses. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only person I can think of that' been to war is Pat Tillman. I wasn't around for WWII or Vietnam. So personally I think that we could get rid of it entirely.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might be of relevance to this (old) discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#New roster template.—NMajdan•talk 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion at Template_talk:Saskatchewan_Roughriders_roster. Has any consensus been reached? Could guidance be added to the main project article? --Real Deuce (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the CFL officially refer to the "practice roster" as the Developmental Squad? I have seen it mentioned many times and seem to recall it being mentioned by the CFL after the newest CBA was put into place. All the roster templates should reflect the official name correct?

Also, since the CFL uses many more "inactive lists" than the NFL appears to, shouldn't each list have its own heading for the roster template? I ask because I had place the suspended Riders under one heading and the injured Riders under another heading. Maybe the reason I am meticulous about these headings, is that many times during last season, the Riders had players on several different lists, each with different parameters attached to them. I believe at one point, there were players on the Bereavement list, Injured list, Suspended list and Disabled list (along with the Reserve list). Since each have different stipulations, I'd think its reasonable to have each listed. At the very least, the Reserve List does need its own heading as it isn't an inactive list. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, it is known as the developmental squad in the CFL rules but it is ordinarily and commonly referred to as the practice roster. check out http://cfl.ca/roster/index/team/4 and http://www.cfl.ca/article/lions-bolster-roster-with-seven-signings for instance. Wikipedia policy is generally to use the common, expected name for things and explain official and technicalities in the article.

As for the "Reserve list", I'm not sure what precisely you are referring to. The section on the Roster navboxes should probably be entitled Inactive in order to include all the different parameters you listed above including 9-game injured and suspended. I don't think that there needs to be different lists for all the subsets of inactive besides practice roster. Interesting parameters, as you put it, can be added by means of injury icon or (Susp.), in my opinion. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reserve List is the 4 players who are on the 46 man active roster, but deactivated at worse two hours before game time. This creates an inactive, active list. This definitely requires a heading of its own, as they are not inactive per se, but rather chosen not to be inserted into the game roster. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't think there's any point in trying to keep a reserve list current just for the three or four hours of game time to show who dressed. They are still on the active roster. I think we should keep it simple and mostly match the cfl.ca list of Active, and Practice, and just modify the Injured to Inactive so we can keep the list of players who are (injured), (suspended), etc. I'm willing to debate whether the term should be Developmental or Practice, though. DoubleBlue (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last year I meticulously kept track of the Reserve List for the Riders. I'm not sure if its as easy for the rest of the teams, but I am willing to give it a shot. I will use next week's preseason games as the litmus test for this. If a secondary heading isn't necessary, perhaps we could denote these players as such? I can't speak for last season, as the transaction reporting was atrocious at CFL.ca, but previous years have shown these as transactions. So it is a list unto itself and sees players transferred back and forth. But if consensus is no to this, I guess I will concede.

As far as the Developmental Squad/Practice Roster debate, my CFL press following is fairly myopic and Rider-centric, so I can't speak for the rest of the league. But it seems that the Riders' press corp uses Developmental Squad as their name for it, the Rider radio team does also. The club seems to waiver back and forth on the issue. I guess the reason, I ask if uniformity along the templates is the idea, then should we follow the Official CFL Rules or go with a non-official term for it? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should go with what's common which is "Practice Roster" (plus it's much easier to type), and then have one big "Inactive list" which contains players who are suspended, injured etc.--Giants27 (t|c) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that "practice roster" is more commonly used and understood; though I know it's called developmental squad in the CBA and occasionally in press releases. If that changes, I would go with changing it. Ideally we would also link to the practice roster article but it's rather dreadful to begin with and lacks any Canadian football content. I suppose we should anyway and invite improvement.

If you think we can keep up the Reserve list, then we can give it a try. Of course, it would actually reflect the reserve list for the previous week but it doesn't generally change much from week to week anyway so it is of interest. If it isn't working out, we can retire it and move them back to the Active list. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This project needs to be way more active, the portal is rarely updated, overall there is only one GA, there are a combined total of three featured content works, two if you don't count Wayne Gretzky. Look above to the 93rd Grey Cup section that article is a copy-edit/slight expansion away from GA/A quality. There could be way more GAs/As/FAs of CFL teams/players/seasons/front office guys if we collaborate to produce this.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kind of forgot or never knew there was a portal. I really think it needs to be less time-sensitive anyway. It should be an overview of the topic with links to key articles. Maybe updated before and after the season.

I agree about collaborating to get some good articles. I would really like to get Canadian football to good article status as it is a very important article both for our project and it is part of the Wikipedia:Release Version. Some other topics might be well-known and published people like Pinball Clemons, Jackie Parker, Warren Moon, Johnny Bright, Normie Kwong. There is a list of football people who are in The Canadian Encyclopedia at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCECategories&Params=A1SUB7CAT111 DoubleBlue (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears as though the baseball wikiproject has a article collaboration area, I think one here would be very useful.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a similar thing at WPCANADA at Wikipedia:Canada collaboration but it shut down due to lack of participation (though that was several years ago now and I think it would work there now). We could do a simplified version here. Come up with a list of priorities, vote for what we'd like to and would work on first and just keep it as our chosen project either till we're done with it or a determined due date, like a month. Then, move on to the next chosen project. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to do that the article collaborations should really do star players past and present.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration page created by DoubleBlue.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, started. It's not quite ready for prime time. I had some initial thoughts and wanted to save them there and planned to do some more stuff after the weekend and invite some ideas for improvement then. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that all imports are being mentioned as being signed as undrafted free agents. While this is technically true, is there a better way to put this, as imports are not subjected to the Canadian Draft? For some reason it just stands out as odd wording to me, as it holds the NFL connotation in my mind of being passed over in the draft. These players were not passed over as they are not subject to the draft. But I can't think of a better way to put this unless we simply say they were signed by Team X.Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For which players does it say this, if it's Jason English it should say undrafted free agent since the Jaguars signed him before the Argos. However if it's someone like Tumbo Abanikanda it's wrong it should say street free agent.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with both of you. It's very misleading to call them undrafted since the CFL does not draft imports. Simply free agent or street free agent, depending on the circumstances, are far more appropriate terms. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The player I was referring to was Graham Harrell. It says something to the effect of he was signed as an undrafted free agent but the Riders. In this case, he was simply a free agent, his NFL status is inconsequential. Shootmaster 44 (talk)

Yeah I noticed that after your post since I thought that was who you were referencing to so I changed it to "street free agent".--Giants27 (c|s) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know a reliable source for CFL statistics from the mid 1990s? I couldn't immediately find anything online. Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 07:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no one fantastic site. There's stuff from cfl.ca saved by the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.cfl.ca/CFLStats/home.html but only from 1996 on. http://www.cflapedia.com/ is quite good but organised by player, incomplete, and, though I find it reliable, its ranking on the Reliable sources scale would not necessarily be high. There are, of course, the CFL's Facts, Figures, and Records books but, depending on your precise need, you may need to find one from that era. Actually one of my next steps was to start a resource page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football/Playbook) that would have tips like this but I've real life tasks that I've decided I must tackle first. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the reply. I was hoping there'd be something like pro-football-reference.com. Oh, well... :) Zagalejo^^^ 21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently created three new footer systems for CFL-related templates. Two of these (Template:CFL roster footer and Template:CFL staff footer) give rise to a redundancy that may be regarded as controversial. Template:CFL roster footer is redundant with the More rosters links on the template, while Template:CFL staff footer is redundant with the More CFL staffs links. I think this facilitates better wikification than a list article consisting of stacked navboxes, although I am not sure if there is a way to individualize the colors on each template. I have done the same thing for WP:NFL related templates. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Navbox_controversy, I have stated that WP:NFL and WP:CFL might elect to handle this issue differently, but if these are regarded as redundancies, I think the footer template may be the better way to go.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I agreed with on the Baseball footer TFD: "I see no value in being able to navigate between roster templates, especially with how "clunky" it looks. The main roster templates are transcluded on the main team page and the current season page. When viewing those pages, IMO, the reader doesn't care about the other rosters for other teams. If they do, the category for the templates is just two clicks away. The footer is especially obtuse on the roster navboxes, taking up approximately a third of the template." In addition, it seems that WP:CFL seems to lean somewhere between WP:NFL and WP:Hockey as far as how things are done. Granted, it seems sometimes as if this project is largely me in as far as discussion goes. However, the CFL pages do feature many WP:Wikignomes, who toil away without ever voicing an opinion on this one. It seems that they tend to be a little more on the hockey side of doing things.

As an aside, in the CFL world (as I can anticipate the fantasy sports comment) fantasy sports are non-existent so there is little interest in day-to-day transactions. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that the Saskatchewan Roughriders are probably the only team that the majority of readers would care whether Player X has been added to the Developmental Squad or whether Player Y has been dropped from the Developmental Squad. You will find hardcore fans of all teams, but from a majority standpoint I'd guess that it is the Rider Nation out by a long shot. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the ten CFL team seasons navboxes for deletion, because all they do is duplicate a section of the team navbox. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 20#CFL team seasons navboxes. 117Avenue (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page Comparison of Canadian football and rugby union, but unfortunately it contains too many references to American football. I was hoping that some people from this project could help improve it. I'm not really au fait with the precise differences between CF and AF, other than pitch size... Many thanks --MacRusgail (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good to have such a comparison with Australian football as well. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spent some time today working on the kinks on this. Good idea, will keep at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryantomtom (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there's no article for gridiron football stadium, since Canadian Football and American Football have specialized football stadia, this might be a useful article to have. As Canadian and American football stadiums have very similar design concerns, a unified article for both codes would be better than separate articles for each (ie. Canadian football stadium & American football stadium ) though such redirects should exist. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I'm not sure how many of you are aware, but for the past couple of years there have been attempts to get the result of the Grey Cup on the front page of Wikipedia in the "In the News" section, but each time it has been rejected due to the article not being up to snuff. Things like playoff game summaries or a lack of prose have been major reasons why the game has been rejected.

I figured this year it would be a good idea to bring this up ahead of the game in case there are any football experts who would be capable of expanding the 100th Grey Cup article to a standard which would be acceptible for the front page. Hopefully this year we can finally get the Cup on the front page. --PlasmaTwa2 08:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who have entered accurate data into the persondata templates of NFL players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for football players: Dan Marino and Tim Tebow. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been creating some bio articles on CFL players, and I had a question regarding whether one can be considered a Grey Cup champion without having played in the game itself. For more information and to provide your opinion/knowledge on this topic, please head over to Talk:Charlie Power (Canadian football). Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 05:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has recently been a discussion at the talk page of the WikiProject on Accessibility regarding Template:Infobox gridiron football person. In the past, the template only had a single set of parameters for playing_years and playing_teams. This caused editors to create lists using <br>. This violates Wikipedia's policies regarding accessibility (see WP:VLIST). To correct this issue, the template has been edited to include numbered parameters playing_years1/playing_team1 through playing_years20/playing_year20 (and similar for coaching, administrating, etc). Eventually, the parameters playing_years and playing_teams will likely be removed from the template and all articles will need to use the new parameters, in order to prevent future issues with accessibility. This template should generally not be in use in articles primarily related to this project, but in practice, many articles that this project will be interested in use it. Meant to remove this; this template is of major interest to most articles in this project.

There is further discussion ongoing about whether these changes should be done manually or with a bot. You can read and contribute to the discussion at the talk page. ~ Rob^Talk 21:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the CFL website has outsourced all of it's pages with stats for players to a site run by STATS, Inc.. This move has broken all of the external links for CFL players using the {{Infobox NFL player}} infobox. Unfortunately the change appears to be more than just a simple URL change (which could be fixed easily in the template), but rather it appears that the IDs associated with each player have changed as well. As such, the fix for this is going to require someone update the ID associated with the cfl parameter on every single article which includes this parameter.

Before that effort is undertaken, it might make sense to discuss whether this external link is actually valuable enough to justify that effort. Also, how confident are we that such a change will not be repeated? Does anyone have a guess as to how "permanent" this CFL site change is? Would it make more sense to link to some third-party site like CFLdb Statistics? Some discussion about the use of these types of external links in Infoboxes is going on over here, which some of you might be interested in chiming in on as well. Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I've removed (commented out) the external links to cfl.ca in {{Infobox NFL player}} until this issue can be addressed. I've also added a tracking category to see how many pages are currently using this parameter: Category:Pages using infobox NFL player with cfl parameter. If anyone comes up with a plan for addressing this issue and is up for taking on the task of fixing (which I believe will mean manually touching every page in that category) feel free to reach out to me and I'll be happy to assist with the template changes. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Canadian sports fans. WP:NFL is in the process of merging, replacing and deleting the last 350 or so remaining uses of Template:Infobox NFL coach. All bio articles for NFL players, coaches, executives and administrators will soon be using an improved version of Template:Infobox NFL player, Template:Infobox NFL biography. In reviewing the list of coaches that use the template, I discovered a number of CFL coaches -- including three current CFL head coaches -- that are using the soon-to-be-former infobox for NFL coaches:

1. Rick Campbell
2. Chris Jones (Canadian football coach)
3. Hamp Pool
4. Jeff Tedford
5. Bob Wylie

As I understand it, all CFL personnel are supposed to use Template:Infobox gridiron football person, not NFL-specific templates. The conversion process for Infobox NFL coach should be complete in the next 30 days or so. After that, the template will be deleted and redirected, and all support for it withdrawn. If you guys want to convert these six infoboxes to their proper CFL template, now is the time to do it. If you have any questions, please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently acquired a major source for player data from the CFL. A book called "The Canadian Pro Football Encyclopedia: Every Player, Coach and Game, 1946-2012" is basically exactly what the title says. It's conceivable that the information in this book could be used to create an article on literally every single player that's played in the post-World War II professional era. Most of the articles that don't already exist would likely be stubs. I've also found cases where the information in this source improved existing articles. If any CFL editors are interested in making use of this source, please let me know. If you're interested in a specific player, I could provide a scan of that player's page in the book, which generally includes biographical information, all programs they've played for, and a table of statistics. If you're interested in article creation, I could provide a scan of 5 or so pages in the book. Each page contains information on roughly 15 players in alphabetical order. Let me know if this source would be helpful to you! ~ Rob^Talk 04:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to automatically tag articles for our project within the categories of Category:Players of Canadian football by position. This seems pretty common sense; all Canadian football players should obviously be tagged for this project. Any objections to that? ~ Rob^Talk 22:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: You mean no objections, right? (as opposed to no tagging). Heading off the inevitable question about this at the BRFA. ~ Rob^Talk 22:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they should all be tagged. One word answers lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: Did you ever do this? lol. I've come across many players that need tagged. Also, I would propose we tag everything in Category:Players of Canadian football. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WikiOriginal-9: No! I did not. Getting this done now. Thoughts on the following categories as well? Category:Canadian football competitions, Category:Canadian Football League announcers, Category:Canadian Football League coaches, Category:Canadian Football League executives, Category:Canadian football templates, Category:Canadian Football League seasons, Category:U Sports football teams, Category:Canadian Football League seasons? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, those all look good to me. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Running now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single link to the CFL player stats in {{Infobox gridiron football person}} is broken, following a change in how the URLs are structured on the CFL website. Any ideas on how to fix this? The new URLs don't seem to follow a pattern based on the old from what I'm seeing, so this might require manual review. ~ Rob^Talk 02:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be opposed to setting up importance ratings for this project? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with it if and only if we set up guidelines for importance similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Assessment#Importance_scale. I would oppose importance ratings if they were left to be subjective. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mock-up at User:WikiOriginal-9/Canadian football for anyone who's interested. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good to me. The cutoff points will always be somewhat arbitrary, but I think as long as we have some type of objective cutoff, the importance categories can be useful. How do we want to treat the CIS? It's hard to rank them against the CFL, but CIS coaches/players fall under this project's scope as well. I'd say head coaches with 3+ Vanier Cups should be High, 1–2 Vanier Cups should be Mid, and all other coaches should be Low. All CIS players should be Low, except Hec Crighton Trophy winners, who should be Mid. For non-biographies, highest level should be High for things like the Vanier Cup. Football-specific articles of current teams and specific Vanier Cup games would be Mid. Everything else, pretty much, would be Low. Thoughts? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. I already had the Vanier Cup listed as high and the individual Cups listed as mid. Also, are we sure that all of the Hec Crighton Trophy winners are notable. If we're gonna make winners of that award mid-importance, they should probably all be able to have their own articles, right? Same thing for the Vanier Cup winning coaches. They should probably all be notable too if we're gonna make them higher than low importance. I'm not stating an opinion on either one of their notabilities (is that a word). I'm just saying we should probably make sure before implementing this. Also, do you think CIS football should be ranked as high or top importance. Additionally, what do you think the individual CIS seasons should be ranked as. At least WP:CFB and WP:NFL are separate so they don't have to try and fit in both college and pro on their importance scales lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did a little research. If you go to CIS football and go to the team section, you can see that a lot of current CIS head football coaches have their own articles. Of course, there may be a possibility that they just went unnoticed and someone created them all in one day. However, 3-time Vanier Cup winning coach Blake Nill seems to pass GNG (he played in the CFL regardless but still). Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Coaches says that all Division I, I FCS, II, III and NAIA head coaches are notable. So if they're all notable, then Vanier Cup winning head coaches probably are too. And for the sake of this discussion, we're just talking about the CIS coaches that won something. The rest may be notable as well. The II, III and NAIA coaches don't even have to have won anything to be notable. Also, the Hec Crighton is like Canada's Heisman so they're probably notable as well. Looks like Mel Smith, Al Charuk and Larry Mohr played in the CFL if you wanna stub them out. So, overall, your criteria for 3+ Vanier Cups, 1–2 Vanier Cups and Hec Crighton Trophy winners sounds good. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think the importance scale for the NFL should be changed slightly. I'm mainly referring to the numbers of seasons (7). Lizard said at my talk page that it was too lenient. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at WP:NFL if you wanna weigh in. Might as well do that before implementing the CFL scale. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response; been swamped. All head coaches tend to be notable. It isn't a "default" thing in a notability guideline, I don't believe, but the reality is that a coach that wins a Vanier Cup is virtually guaranteed to meet WP:GNG based on the Vanier Cup-related coverage alone, not to mention the coverage head coaches of good teams get throughout the season. Hec Crighton Trophy winners would meet WP:NCOLLATH #1, in my opinion. It's the highest level national award a Canadian football player can win in college. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all sounds fair. I rated the individual Vanier Cup and CIS seasons as mid because the individual Grey Cup and CFL seasons are high. I also ranked individual CIS teams as mid and the CIS overall as high. I kept the junior football teams as low. If anyone ever wants to change something, feel free to suggest it. The only thing left up for debate is the seven seasons thing. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: Did you move that importance guide somewhere? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football/Assessment. Also, in the unknown importance category, there are a lot of easy ones like seasons and Cups that could be quickly assessed semiautomatically if you're interested. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More likely automatic based on category. I did something similar for WP:NFL. I'll take a look at that in a couple weeks; I have multiple high-edit bot tasks pending at the moment, so I've got to let those run their course before taking more stuff on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian football players aren't always Canadian. Per MOS:BLPLEAD, opening a lead on a player by saying "X is a Canadian football player" when they are not of Canadian nationality is wrong. We need to say something like "X is an American gridiron football player", such as I did here. From a quick glance, I see there are other pages where the lead sentence makes an American CFL player appear to be Canadian by birth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WP:CFL members. I'm not sure if this would fall under your WikiProject's scope, but was wondering if someone might mind taking a look at User:Lion1407/sandbox/Harrison Stewart (Football Player). I stumbled across the draft while checking on some recent image uploads. I'm not sure how undrafted/unsigned former college football players are assessed for notability, but WP:NGRIDIRON doesn't seem to apply here. Anyway, if Stewart's notable for getting a tryout with a CFL team, the draft creator could probably use some help with the formatting, etc. to bring it inline with relevant policies and guidelines. Someone might be able to help out with the images as well. I also have a slight suspicion based upon User talk:Diannaa#Harrison Stewart Photos that there might be some connection between the creator and Stewart. This is not such a big deal as long as the draft is submitted for review through AfC, but could be an issue later on if the draft becomes an article and the creator continues to try and edit it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to help create articles for the missing inductees in the Canadian Football Hall of Fame. I would definitely like if all of the missing builders were made first as they are important. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox in the 2017 CFL season, isn't matching the infoboxes in the others CFL season articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal for a WikiProject, American Football Minor Leagues. It will improve football minor-league articles. Put your name in the "support" section of the article if you would like to join. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed Canada men's national football team be moved to Canada men's national gridiron football team. The current title is not sufficiently specific for it to be useful to a reader. The discussion is here. – PeeJay 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if any of these sources are considered reliable for stats: Stats Crew/Just Sports Stats, Pro Football Archives, or CFLapedia. If not, I was wondering where I could find stats for retired CFL players from the 1980s-2000s that aren't on CFL.ca. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a few questions for the CFL and NFL project users

1. For the CFL, WP:NGRIDIRON states that Canadian football players are presumed notable if they played in the Canadian Football League, my question is, are the pre-CFL players notable too, because the league was founded as a merger between the IRFU and WIFU, so it was the same teams and players, just a different name of the league. I was wondering because I created a few Canadian football coach articles and wanted to make sure they would not be deleted (the current ones I have created I have made sure have received a lot of coverage (as some articles pass GNG with for say, 3 or 4 articles with SIGCOV, I made sure they received more than that, see Rev. Father Stanton)) And also, if they are notable, how far back would the notability go?

2. For the NFL, in 1920, some of the NFL teams played against non league opponents, and they were counted as official games (in fact, I've created articles for some of those teams, see Lansing Oldsmobile, Kewanee Walworths, Zanesville Mark Grays, Gary Elks, Columbus Wagner Pirates, Chicago Boosters, Moline Universal Tractors, and those are some of the weirdest team names I've ever seen) this was only in the first season, though. Should the players and head coaches from the non league teams have articles too? As NGRIDIRON says that players in the NFL are notable. However, the only sources for the players would most likely just be a short newspaper article listing the rosters, which is not significant coverage. In addition, these players do not have NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference.com, or profootballarchives pages. I don't think these players should have articles since there is probably barely anything on them, as even some NFL players from the 20s don't have much on them.

3. Also for the NFL, should the Syracuse Pros players have articles? As they do not have Pro Football Reference pages and the Pros are a debated NFL team.

4. Again NFL, but this is more minor league, I was going to create an article for Dutch Slagle (I already did make an article for him, but it was changed to a redirect because "minor league coaches don't pass notability criteria", but that was good at the time because I barely had any sources), coach of the Wilmington Clippers in 1937, but I'm not sure if he is also George Slagle who played in the NFL in 1926. I think this because it says here that he spent time with Louisville, where George Slagle played. (and he does meet GNG based on my newspaper clippings, see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] plus more)

Thanks BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion you may wish to contribute to at Talk:Clarke Stadium#Elks at Clarke Stadium. Indefatigable (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be confusion as to the totals or types of division titles for teams at West Division (CFL) & East Division (CFL). Trying figure which should go into each of the team articles. Regular seasons titles or playoff titles. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the Project Team might have answered this in the past, have a quick answer to point to.

If 1955 in Canadian football is the first season that the playoff competition for the Grey Cup was between professional teams only, why does the 1954 in Canadian football article state "1954 is generally recognized as the start of the modern era of Canadian football"? Is it because of the NBC contract for eastern (Interprovincial Rugby Football Union) teams? Is it because of some specific rule change? Is it because of the one, passing, mention in the referenced Jim Mullin article, saying "In 1954 – generally recognized as the start of the modern era of Canadian football –", though giving no explanation? Is it because 1954 is when the professional clubs finally got fed up with having to play the amateur clubs (which would mean the start of "preparing" for the modern era, rather than the actual start itself, which happens in 1955)?

Is there something in one of the three books shown in Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football#Resources that gives a specific reason for the statement? If so, that would be a terrific reference and detail to add in support of the statement that 1954, which appears to be no different from 1953, is somehow the start of "modern", rather than 1955, when a very specific and meaningful change – dropping the amateur clubs from competition for the Grey Cup – occurred. Look forward to the details on this. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, 1954 was the first season that the Ontario Rugby Football Union stopped competing for the Grey Cup. From the 1954 season onward, the Grey Cup was competed for only by what would eventually become the West Division & East Division of the CFL. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NGRIDIRON] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further proposals[edit]

Your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

• Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
• Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
• Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
• Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
• Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
• Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
• Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
• Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RIP NGRIDIRON regarding its repeal. Cbl62 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we 'really' need team location maps, in the CFL season pages? GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to call attention here to Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Add_Warren_Moon_and_if_necessary_remove_Doug_Flutie.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread. Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football § College football and Canada to reach consensus on football at Canadian universities.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines were changed early last year to require that all sports biographies have at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV (not counting database entries). In recent months, there have been efforts to draftify en masse sport substubs that do not comply with this requirement. Accordingly, we have begun a campaign to improve gridiron football biographies that could be targeted in a similar RfC. See full list of most vulnerable Canadian football articles here. The list is not intended as criticism of anyone, as such stubs were permitted prior to the change in policy. Instead, the purpose is to encourage each of us to clean up these stubs so as to avoid draftification or deletion. I am hoping that all Canadian football project members will revisit some of these articles to add the required SIGCOV. Thanks, Cbl62 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Heads up on a recently closed RFC, which may effect the future naming of CFL Draft & related pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should have no bearing on the capitalization of the CFL Draft, except to signal that a discussion could end up happening soon. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: A few people are drafted by both the NFL and CFL. It's going to look weird having "NFL draft" and "CFL Draft" at, for example, Sidy Sow once someone updates the NFL infobox. I don't really mind either way. I understand both sides of the capitalization issue. It used to be at lowercase for awhile so I'm used to it anyways. Also, I'm not sure if you're watching this page or not so what's why I pinged you. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my other comment for visibility) As the RfC closer, I can confirm that the close applies only to pages related to the NFL draft and has no impact on other leagues or sports. There was some discussion of them at the RfC, but was unrelated to the RfC question or the consensus reached. Anyone trying to use it to bypass discussion on other articles is not interpreting the close correctly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A multi-RM has been opened, concerning the CFL Draft & related pages. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]