Talk:X League (women's football)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cleanup tag for Lingerie Football League[edit]

Hi Delta Tango, you taged LFL for cleanup... can you specify the kind of cleanup, the article needs? Thanks!

Weapon X (de) 02:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. It could use one or more sections and the "with lots of pictures" comment behind the external links seems out of place. And I think the article could describe critiscm the league has received if noticeable. I must admit that one of my reasons for saying this is, is a slightly bad conscience from having been forced to revert this edit. Though I'll leave it here to be decided by others. Delta Tango | Talk 11:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC) (above copied from my talk page)[reply]


Cleanup steps to do:
  • More sections: Do you mean adding section headlines or complete sections?
  • Section Headlines: I could try to find some section headlines, but the article isn't that long yet...
  • Complete Sections: I would love to write more, as long as I get valuable info that's worth to be added into the article... (but I think that's more a (stub) expanding job than a cleanup job)
  • Out of place comment: I agree, at first glance, a link comment like "with lots of pictures" on an article about Woman playing football in Lingerie tricots could feel a bit out of place. But this comments partly were added by following Wikipedia "Manual of Style" (see Talk:Lingerie Bowl). I will try to replace the comments with a more meaningful comment, not only explaining, why a link was added (pictures), but also why the pictures could be "neutral and accurate material".
In this case the links lead to pages which had lots of info, but the sites are in Italian, so only a minority can actually understand them (exactly). But the sites have also material, which can be understood from every one: pictures... they were helpful in completing the lineups (incl. numbers) for the teams (for example Jerilee Woodford = Jerilee Villanueva). Also, it's a good way to document tricot changes over the years.
By the way: The LFL was not founded to discredit woman sports or woman at all. The woman playing in this "league" are not football players forced to wear lingerie (or other short clothes) like for examle people at official beach volleyball matches. These are professional models and/or actresses, who like to show their body and at the same time enjoy sport. (Though every one who saw the games must admit that the players were taking this sport seriously.) It's only a variation of a sport, not a new definition of Woman Football. And everyone who has a problem with links which lead to sites in which woman are shown in revealing lingerie tricots in an article about Lingerie(!) Football is misunderstanding something, that's my opinion.
  • Criticism: As mentioned before, sources are welcome! If someone can name a noticeable source, I'll be glad to insert them into the article. I searched the web and found very few pages about LFL, most official articles were outdated. The only critisism I found was here at Wikipedia in form of article vandalism (to the point of deleting the whole articles), which I reverted without extensive comment.
Weapon X (de) 11:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted image galleries[edit]

The following image galleries of team logos were removed by Osgoodelawyer because "fair use logos ... only allowed on articles for the teams themselves".

I can remember something like that, but can't find the place where it was written.. can somebody help? - Weapon X (de) 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images have to have a fair use rationale for each use on the image description page. This often this isn't followed for logos, since logos are basically always usable on pages for the organization or company in question (unlike photos, which really need a detailed explanation of why a non-commercial image of the subject could not be found). However, use anywhere else would fail the fair use criteria since it would not contribute significantly to the article (it's just decoration, which is a no-no). Clearly this is the case, since the articles for all the major sports leagues lack team logos.
Policy point 9 at WP:FU says you can't put these logos here either (even temporarily). I have removed the first four since they are already used on the articles for the teams, and so aren't in danger of deletion. The other four have to go as well—just save them yourself if you feel they're going to be deleted, and if you create pages for those teams, you can put them on them as well. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmh, so I also removed the second one on this talk page and made team articles (only stubs, because their isn't that much information available yet) where I placed the team logos. However, possibly another wikipedian oder admin will tag these articles as being "proposed to be merged" with the LFL article, because they haven't much info, so we will start from the beginning...
And can you please let me know, where to find the policy (or something like that) so I can read it completely and if neccessary fall back on it, when I need to.
Another question: If I'll get the permission of the logo owner, to show the logos also on the league-article, would that make a difference? - Greetings Weapon X (de) 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the legality of what you're proposing. I would assume that if you got permission and sent that permission to Wikimedia by following the procedure at WP:COPYREQ, then you could include the logos on the league article. But I'm not certain, since such images on Wikipedia are usually allowed through the owner licencing the images under GFDL or some other copyleft licence, and the league is obviously not going to do that (it would mean others could take those logos and use them for their own purposes, including making money off them). I would suggest you ask somewhere at WP:RFCA (probably Wikipedia talk:Copyrights). └ OzLawyer ┐ 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references! - Weapon X (de) 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"2009-2010"[edit]

Is this section encyclopedic? These events haven't occurred yet. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half Time[edit]

This article says both, that half times are 10 minutes and 12 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.142.162 (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 MTV2 broadcasts[edit]

I'm going to change the text regarding the upcoming season's broadcasts on MTV2. As currently worded, it implies the broadcasts will feature the complete games, and this isn't so. Every source I've looked at - among them, www.dailyherald.com, www.sptimesforum.com, and www.sportsbusinessdigest.com - says that these will instead be half-hour highlight shows. Elsquared (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section tag[edit]

The tag says the "criticism" section's mere presence may indicate the article isn't neutral, but since most of the language from sections above reads like something from a marketing department isn't it fair to mention possible controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echo5Joker (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was changed to "reception", which is better and more neutral. However, several times in mid-2012, someone (IP 68.224.19.184) deleted the entire section wholesale without any comment. Such edits have been restored by subsequent users. Who is this user? Someone from the LFL management trying to whitewash the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.137.69 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I wonder is: Have anyone out there (besides LFL management) given the league a positive review? All I see in the section is mainly criticisms and controversies(?) ZappaOMati 15:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the entire extent of 68.224.19.184's contributions to this date:
03:58, 19 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-378) . . Lingerie Football League
03:57, 19 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-4,535) . . Lingerie Football League (→Reception) (Tag: section blanking)
04:57, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-404) . . Lingerie Football League
04:56, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-4,535) . . Lingerie Football League (→Reception) (Tag: section blanking)
15:45, 13 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-649) . . File:LFL logo.jpg (←Replaced content with '== Summary ==') (Tag: image template modification)
15:42, 13 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-336) . . Lingerie Football League
01:01, 7 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-106) . . Lingerie Football League (→External links)
00:59, 7 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-4,535) . . Lingerie Football League (→Reception) (Tag: section blanking)
09:32, 18 June 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-4,535) . . Lingerie Football League (→Reception) (Tag: section blanking)
 At what point does that IP get banned from editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrose909 (talk • contribs)

68.224.19.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) geolocates to Las Vegas, the location of LFL Headquarters. I've given them a {{uw-coi}} (conflict of interest) notice. I'd say one more edit along those lines would be sufficient grounds for a WP:AIV report. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See you at AIV  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Legends Football League[edit]

Hi, I just moved the Lingerie Football League page to Legends Football League, as the league was officially renamed as of January 10, 2013. Is there a Wikipedia way to deal with the way the league is referenced in the article? Should all mentions of Lingerie Football League be changed to Legends Football League?

Also, this page will need a new logo, as the logo for LFL has also been changed.

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Triumph strike[edit]

Surely there ought to be some mention of the Toronto Triump strike? It seems important if nearly an entire roster quits in a young league. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"American football"[edit]

Can this really be described as "American football", instead of North American football/gridiron football ? Isn't it a bit too different to be called "American football"? (as different or more different than Canadian football) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LFL Australia[edit]

I'm attempting to keep this from turning into an edit war, so I'll just state it here. Recently, me and an IP have been reverting over the addition of the LFL Australia teams list, which I stated is already verified, and per WP:CRYSTAL, as long as it's verifiable and almost certain to occur, it can be kept. The IP then stated that no sources in Australia exist of it, so I've provided some of them (I think they're from Australia) here: [1][2][3]. ZappaOMati 04:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it can't be kept is because it's not notable. Where crystal balling comes in is that you think it will be notable once it starts. It doesn't matter about verifiability. That's irrelevant. Notability comes first. You have to prove notability and until then, it stays off the page. Gridiron is NOT a notable sport in Australia and that's a fact. So those links you gave are far from adequate to prove notability. 101.171.127.236 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, check the Geolocate on that 203 IP. You'll see that was not me. 1.124.85.68 (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't look at the Geolocate for some reason (damn iPad...), but looking at American football in Australia, it looms like it's somewhat notable, even if there's no sanctioning body for it. Also, I proved at least some notability, and here are some more sources I found, which can probably be the "verified" portion. ([4][5][6][7][8][9]). Anyway, you claim that it's not notable, WP:JNN? Also, you say that football isn't popular in Australia, see WP:FARAWAY. As long as there are reliable sources that don't contain trivial coverage, and the sources are independent of the LFL, it passes the general notability guideline. We're also trying to avoid systematic bias here, so WP:IDONTKNOWIT? ZappaOMati 14:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any notability. At the most you're trying to relate notability to that which exists in the LFL in the US. You can't do that. Heck, I just looked at the men's national league page which was noted on the page you linked - it lacked notability sources as well and I prodded it as such for deletion. Individual leagues in a particular area have some very strict requirements for notability. The coverage is trivial, simply because the league hasn't started yet. It could stiff you know. That's why I introduced the crystal ball argument. The popularity is still a relevant argument because of the lack of real non trivial mainstream coverage. In fact the links you placed could be argued to be promotional, which counts it out as a valid source (I say that without looking at the links admittedly). In the end, one should actually wait until the whole thing actually starts - and see what happens. If it doesn't stiff, notability lines will be established and there won't be a problem. 1.126.85.57 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources I provided, I don't know what you're talking about regarding relating notability to that of the LFL in the US. I'm pretty sure at least a few of them are Aussie sources. But then again, I think probably one or two of them could be promotional (like the Brisbane arena one), but the announcement of a new league can't quite be considered as promotional, and the sources don't seem to just simply have trivial mentions, and have actual articles on it. For example (don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERCRAP, since I'm not going to cry about the creation of the page): the creation of United SportsCar Racing. It received quite some coverage from various sources regarding the announcement, such as [10][11]. Would two announcements be considered as promotional? Also, you didn't WP:PROD the page I linked, or at least I didn't see anything in the revision history. Even if the league doesn't start up, I think probably a mention regardless seems fine, since the LFL itself (as in the "owner", not the US league: I can't find a correct term, so as an analogy: NASCAR is the "owner", while the Sprint Cup Series is the league) had a failed attempt which would've garnered at least some coverage. ZappaOMati 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the sources are Australian or not. You're relying - or rather they are relying (or perhaps both) on the notability of the LFL in the US to get over. I think there's a rule prohibiting that (associated notability or some such thing). The prod wasn't on American Football in Australia, it was on Australian Gridiron League - which after one alleged season (the winner couldn't even be cited!) has virtually no coverage. So if the men can't get coverage, what will happen to the women? You totally ignored my argument re crystal balling and preferred to argue against my promotional argument. EVERY story prior to something starting can be seen as promotional no matter what. The comparison to car racing is irrelevant because that has a presence in a lot more countries, including Australia (the Bathurst 1000 is an event in itself as is of course the F1 Grand Prix). 101.168.85.54 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see your point. Notability is not inherited. How could I have forgotten about the Bathurst as well? I ignored your statement because I didn't understand that statement at first, but as I said, Ifeel like probably a simple mention can be placed, even if the league fails to take off. Scratch that, the league's already mentioned under Legends Football League#LFL Australia. ZappaOMati 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, you prodded the page because it's not notable, and I see your point regarding that, though you also stated thenwinner cant be cited, though it does seem to appear that the results are at 2012 Australian Gridiron League season, and here, although that'd be a WP:PRIMARY source. ZappaOMati 14:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the LFL starting to be seen as legit?[edit]

There's some disagreement about whether to include the following paragraph, added by 166.137.209.156 on 26 September:

Since mid-2014, such magazines and websites as Forbes, Sports Illustrated, and Bleacher Report, have begun to recognize the legitimacy of the Legends Football League and its athletes. Fitness magazines such as Fitness RX and Shape have begun to publish stories on the workouts and preparations of the LFL athletes. Critics have started changing there view as the product shown has changed from a sexually-charged gimmick to an organization focused on the pure beauty and athleticism of the women featured and the heart that they put into the game. The Legends Football League is starting to be seen as a legit contender in the world of sports. [reference: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markjburns/2014/09/06/with-series-of-bold-moves-legends-football-league-aims-to-become-global-sports-property]

My position is that the cited source does not support the claim made. The Forbes article does not say that LFL is starting to be seen as legitimate. It says that Mitch Mortaza, the founder and chairman of the LFL, says the LFL is starting to be seen as legitimate. If we're to include that claim at all, we need to make it very clear that it's a claim made by a man with a financial interest in the LFL, not by any neutral commentator. But personally, I don't think this is even worth including. Of course the LFL founder and chairman is going to say that. How is that even interesting? We don't write that the chair of Coca-Cola says Coke is terrific, because that's exactly what anyone would expect him to say. The statement has zero encyclopedic value. The Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. I think the removal is necessary. His quotes have been found to be lies and glamorizations designed to cover up alot of scams and shortcuts he has taken in operating this "league". Toronto Triumph had it right in leaving the league. The criticisms speak the truth of the league, remove this source and these lies. Nate001 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nate001. It's been over a week and no-one's disagreed, so I've removed the disputed text.
I don't think any of the sources mentioned above (Forbes, Sports Illustrated, Bleacher Report) are currently cited in our article, so if anyone can find them they could be useful for expansion. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LFL US[edit]

Why the use of hot pink in the title? Really hard on the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.56.229 (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I couldn't see that colour on their official site, so I reformated that table to have the same colours as the "Defunct and planned future LFL United States teams" table. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LFL in Australia[edit]

Placed an add on under the LFL Australia banner that I'm not sure is completely accurate, but want your opinion on. The add on states that it will never be back in Australia because of lack of players. Looks like it was removed once by an IP but I put it back (that's my IP that shows up because at the time I couldnt remember my login). Personally, the only source I've seen came from the Ladies Gridiron League but no reliable news sources. On the other side, the IP that removed it claimed the LFL said it would for sure be back in Australia, but there's been no substantial news there either. So I ask, is this something we feel should be removed from the subject, or just reworded to state its status is up in the air? Nate001 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So, still no solid evidence either way. Another IP has removed the info in the article, and due to no solid articles either way, I feel it should stay that way, gone for good. Nate001 (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, leave it out unless someone can find a reliable source. I'm a big fan of Jimbo's quote, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legends Football League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legends Football League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Article or Rename?[edit]

As the Extreme Football League is essentially another rebrand of the LFL, I'm editing the article accordingly. But, otherwise, should the "X League" be given its own page instead? The XFL (2020) was given its own page and, unlike the X League, looks to be a complete revamp of the original XFL (2001), removing all the WWE-esque gimmicks and elements.MarcoPolo250 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoPolo250: The reason I have held off on moving the page is WP:COMMONNAME. I have seen no evidence that any independent sources has noticed the rebrand (which this most definitely is). My guess is that no one will notice until arenas actually confirm dates. Also, if the entire thing goes under, which happens frequently with minor leagues, then the page would just have to be moved back anyways. Per WP:NORUSH, we should wait until independent reliable sources start talking about it (COMMONNAME). Yosemiter (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X League Rebrand[edit]

User:Yosemiter, unless you can find hard evidence that this is anything but another rebrand, stop changing the article. It's simple as that. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoPolo250: The "new" league itself has not directly acknowledged the LFL on its own pages. It has a different business model and it is claiming new history, which is quite different than when it rebranded to the Legends Football League. I agree it is the same entity, but to call it a rebrand vs a complete restructure is WP:SYNTH since no reliable source has made such a claim directly. And yes, despite the title in the BroBible article (which is not even a RS anyways), they too mention it as "new": "The “new” X League bills itself as a “new era in women’s empowerment.”". That source is simply there to show that at least someone outside the league has noticed it is the same organization. Yosemiter (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at least one reliable news source has at least noticed: The Kent Reporter on Jan 9, 2020. There is WP:NORUSH at this time, but if your only issue is the primary use of "restructure" vs the perceived view of "rebrand". That is essentially a dispute over the use of single word. As I said, the X League considers itself a new entity under a new structure of ownership and team branding. Everyone else will (eventually) notice that it basically the same as the LFL. Until they notice and there are multiple sources calling it out as such, we would be writing original research. Yosemiter (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess[edit]

Somebody needs to either change the page title to Extreme Football League or change the intro back to Legends Football League. The current version is junk and makes us look incompetent. --Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha, Yosemiter, MarcoPolo250. From what I can gather from the current state of the article and the information presented about the X-League, it is imperative we make a separate article for Extreme Football League. Note that the X-League is not only with different team names but the ownership structure is completely different. It is a different league. It's important LFL has it's own history preserved (with its lede, infobox and 'Rules' sections intact), while the X-League has its own history recorded separately. DA1 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DA1: All WP:INDEPENDENT sources (such as this one in July) discuss this as a rebrand of the previous leagues (plenty of leagues have undergone restructuring and are considered the same continuity). It has not been renamed yet because of WP:COMMONNAME, the new version has not been discussed in enough independent sources to outweigh the previous names and has not yet played under the new name to affect WP:OFFICIALNAME. As the new version has not been discussed in enough independent coverage with significant depth, it failed WP:GNG (at the time) and it should not have its own page no matter what you feel about organizational continuity (most hits are about the short-term coverage of Mike Ditka's involvement). It is not "imperative" for anything to be done at this time per WP:NORUSH. Yosemiter (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, that my comments in January 2020 were for the sources at the time (as this league is barely covered anywhere, the rebrand was not really covered in any sources). However, based on the Mike Ditka transactional coverage last summer, it can be pretty safe to say that the X League is definitely perceived as a continuation by independent media. I would like a second time point of coverage (such as when/if the league ever actually plays under a new name) before determining to move this page to either X League (women's football) or Extreme Football League (women's football) (both non-DAB titles are already taken, probably why this league got stuck with extfl.com as a website despite never using that abbreviation anywhere else). Again, there is no rush as a google search still turns this page up for all entities. Yosemiter (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for waiting and seeing so that the current article isn't prematurely overhauled. Even if we assume it is a rebrand based on sources (and the frequency of sources reporting one narrative over another doesn't necessarily mean the dominant one is correct but it can become a sticking point for WP), we can still create a new article simply based on the size of the existing article. Per WP:SPINOUT if an article is 100kB it should definitely be split off, but if it's 60kB it should be considered. LFL is currently at 66kB. When X-League accrues more data, it will certainly be too long.
In the current article's section for X-League it points out that it has a different ownership structure, with shares being offered to players and coaches. It also states "The league's first season was postponed to a scheduled start in June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic." DA1 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DA1: The league's first season is called marketing; the league can say whatever it wants. Independent media (which is what Wikipedia is primarily based on) can also read through such claims. Mitch Mortaza is still heavily involved (as seen here) and all the old LFL social media pages were literally only renamed when the rebrand took effect (go ahead and look a the "Page created" parameter at their Facebook page and their Twitter as "Joined March 2009"). They are clearly a continuation in both independent media and their own history. Honestly, if anything, this page could be edited further to remove the seasons (they already have their own pages) and that would cut it way down. Yosemiter (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They also announced a team has relocated to Arizona, but apparently no one in Arizona has been made aware enough to report on it. There isn't enough history on the new version of the league to write about. And 100kB isn't a hard-set cut. There are many pages that are longer and cover much more history (such as the National Football League). We can spinout and retroactively move the page back to a historical name if it ever becomes an issue (or have a "History of..." type page). Yosemiter (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yosemiter: I'm just sharing a perspective. If users want to make changes that goes in that direction specifically, then I'm not going to be undoing it. As for the social media pages, it's entirely possible to have control of a predecessor or acquired company's pages while also being distinct yourself. If the WP article for the former company/product is large enough, the newer iteration can have its own article (once there is enough citations to meet Notability of its own). Think of TV shows: reboots and rebranded continuations or spinoffs are common occurrence, and in most cases they will have their own WP pages. DA1 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change The Name already[edit]

In the THREE YEARS since the league's restructuring, the name of this article should have already been changed. Instead, it's been wasted on stupid debates. The Extreme Football League begins play this Friday, and it's Wikipedia page is still as outdated and useless as its ever been. Yet another example of donations going to waste on this website.Thecleanerand (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 November 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. X-League retargeted to X League. (non-admin closure) Clyde!Franklin! 01:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– The LFL has rebranded and is now known as "X League". The Japanese league should be moved as well, the hyphen is not sufficient disambiguation. Note that the existence of X-League Indoor Football prevents the use of something like X League (United States). 162 etc. (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Sports has been notified of this discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –IagoQnsi (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo[edit]

One of the photographs is of three players wearing the same uniform, but the caption says ä player . . . ."2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:DB2E:DF73:29AF:1481 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page updates needed[edit]

Noticed that the current activities are missing here. Cant edit from phone so just posting this note. Heres some more current info in a related article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Blitz_(X_League) DrMel (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting article split with LFL content[edit]

I'm writing here to alert editors of a major factual error with this article in that it conflates two distinct subjects. In short, the error is that the X-League is not a continuation of the Legends Football League, but a distinct entity that did not exist before 2020.

The article states the the X-League is a rebrand of the Legends Football League. There are several media publications used to support this, but these are likely using one another as sources and further propagating the mistake. X-League management members have been in touch with the primary publications used to support this and corrections are pending. The publications are:

  • https://www.nbcsportschicago.com/nfl/chicago-bears/mike-ditka-becomes-owner-of-x-league-a-womens-tackle-football-league/258779/
  • https://www.kentreporter.com/life/kent-to-have-team-in-rebranded-womens-indoor-football-league/
  • https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2020/07/21/mike-ditka-gets-involved-with-womens-pro-tack.html

The main indication that this is wrong is that the Legends Football League still exits and plays games. Please see https://www.lflus.com/.

The actions that I am requesting to correct this are:

  • Remove the redirect from the Legends Football League article to this article.
  • Move all content about the LFL (anything cited before 2020) from this article to the restored LFL article.


Thanks for taking the time to consider this and I know everyone here is dedicated to keeping Wikipedia as accurate as possible. Looking to build consensus, so I'm open to discussions around opposing views on this article split. SBCornelius (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lflus.com does not appear to be a legitimate site; https://lflus.us does appear to be an official site. Reliable secondary sources, however, are preferred. 162 etc. (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 10-JUL-2023[edit]

  Please use WP:PROPSPLIT  

  • Requests to split an article into two separate articles should be submitted using a split request.
  • The splitting of an article requires community consensus before that split may be completed. Before taking the step to propose a split, please ensure that you are acquainted with the split request process by thoroughly reviewing its procedures. More information can be found at proposed splits.

Regards,  Spintendo  16:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, editing the above to add the request split tag. SBCornelius (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi  Spintendo , are the edits I made to my request sufficient to officially request a split? I'm not sure if you would be the one to respond or if my edit placed the request into a queue for consideration. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. SBCornelius (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to note that one of the three sources listed above has updated their articles to correct the error in stating that the X-League is a continuation of the Legends league. The other two may do the same shortly. SBCornelius (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X_League_(women%27s_football)&oldid=1195564156"