Talk:XFL (2001)

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

Untitled[edit]

It should be noted that the "X" in XFL did not stand for "extreme." When the league was first organized, promoters wanted to make sure that everyone knew that the "X" did not actually stand for anything. -- Then why is this article's title EXtreme Football League instead of XFL? -- Zoe

Beats the hell outta me...You should just change it to XFL or X Football League. Can you do that?

EDIT: Good stuff.


I think it should also be mentioned that the XFL supposedly greatly angered Saturday Night Live executive producer Lorne Michaels. A February game went into overtime and delayed the live broadcast (on the East Coast of course) of an episode that was hosted by Jennifer Lopez (who was also the musical guest). Because of this, NBC decided to rebroadcast the episode as soon as SNL went into another live episode break (which is usually after three episodes). If this was say the World Series being aired on NBC (as opposed to an unproving league like the XFL), then I'm sure that Lorne Michaels wouldn't have gotten so upset. I read that a live episode that was hosted by Rosanna Arquette had to be preempted because of NBC's coverage of the now famous sixth game of the 1986 World Series between the New York Mets and Boston Red Sox.User:TMC1982

It should be mentioned that Memphis also had a CFL team for one year - 1995, the article states that the last time Memphis had a pro team was 1985.

NFL Players[edit]

In the notable personalities section we have Yo Murphy as the first XFL alum to play in a Super Bowl (2001), followed by Rod Smart (2003), and Tommy Maddox as the third to play and first to win. (2005) However, Corey Ivy is listed as a former XFL player, and he played for the Buccaneers from 2001-2004, during which time they won a Super Bowl (2002). Was he off the roster at the time they won or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.147.105 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Injury zone"[edit]

Was this something that the XFL method of starting the game was called on a routine basis, or just on a one-time basis by a sportswriter or announcer? If the latter, it really has no place in the article.

Ratings[edit]

I believe that recent edits have removed the fact that late-season XFL games weren't just the lowest-rated prime-time football games in TV history; they were the lowest-rated prime-time programs ever broadcast by one of the "Big Three" traditional U.S. networks. It also seems to me a stretch to say that most newspapers did not run XFL scores; while more than a few did not, many others did.


XFL Draft[edit]

Should there be a category headline describing the XFL Draft in more detail? (Cardsplayer4life 09:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Corrected information[edit]

You may have noticed that I changed the name of the Jennifer Lopez album mentioned in the account of the SNL controversy. I just watched her profile on E! Entertainment Television and it showed that it was J-Lo that was released in 2001, not On the Six. On the Six was Lopez's first album, released several years earlier. Sorry for the error, but again it has been corrected.--Desmond Hobson 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have removed The Rock from the list of wrestlers that appeared in WWE Films...while he has a film career, he has not appeared in a WWE-produced movie. Dfaber2006 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)dustin Faber. 1-17-06[reply]

besides being puzzled as to this being in the XFL talk, the credits for both Walking Tall and The Rundown include WWE Films as producers. Lynx Raven Raide 09:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the name of the "league"...[edit]

Since the "X" in "XFL" doesn't stand for anything, then shouldn't it be called "X Football League". So, who's in favor of changing the name to "X Football League"? I know I am. 24.7.217.221 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. It was never to my knowledge referred to as the "X Football League", only as "XFL". --TheTruthiness 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The title of the article should be XFL. While as an acronym the XFL does not stand for anything in particular, the letter X suggests an extreme version of the sport similar. Acronyms dont' always have to stand for something. Eg. the acronym YMCA in Canada stands for a set of values as opposed to the Young Mens blah blah blah.

NPOV[edit]

The media response is not really neutral - looks complete bashing of the XFL - yes I know it didn't perform well as expected, but some parts is written as like someone is anti-XFL.--JForget 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-XFL? That's a new one. It's sadly true that not everything can be a smash success, and if reporting on a failure along with reasons for the failure constitutes "NPOV" then half of Wikipedia would be POV. Please read the articles on USFL and WFL, among many others. I believe the tag should be removed unless specific examples can be cited, rather than broad generalizations --70.108.116.231 13:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ESPN/WWE relations[edit]

ESPN is owned by Disney, who also owns ABC. Among wrestling fans, it's well know that ABC dislikes WWE because of its direct competition to Monday Night Football (which is now on ESPN). This should probably be included in the article. ESPN's bashing of the XFL stemmed just as much from this rivalry as it did from actual dislike of the league. ESPN has also been known to favor events that it has the rights to -- Early this college football season (2006), there was quite a bit of controversy over the fact that ESPN only sent College Gameday to games that it or ABC had the rights to air (they have since began being more neutral), which supports this theory. ABC has also aired several shows "debunking" pro wrestling, attempting to prove that it is fake. It's pretty clear that the lack of good press holds some root in this dislike. 72.209.72.177 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if this should be in the article, but that's a good point there. It seems silly to me that such a openly sour relationship between ESPN and WWE would happen solely because Raw competes with MNF directly. Not trying to offend you or anything, but I bet during NFL season, Raw is whooped in the cable ratings by MNF (MNF is on ESPN now). WizardDuck 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna see a football game, as well as a wrestling match, consisting of NFL vs WWE. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacious[edit]

"Ultimately it failed to appeal to members of either group. Wrestling fans wanted drama and hype, while football fans simply wanted a better caliber of play on the field."

Hasty generalization? I'm removing it.

"At the end of 2006, unconfirmed reports surfaced that Richard Branson was interested in starting a new version of the XFL, perhaps with Sylvester Stallone, Stephen Hawking and Joe Namath as game commentators. These reports also stated that penalties for roughing the passer and late hits would be abolished."

Yea right LOL

Perhaps add a trivia section? In the opening of the film "The Sixth Day," the XFL was depicted as the prevalent football league in the future shown in the movie. Arnold Schwarzenegger had appeared on the WWF to promote his movie prior to the start of the league. 69.132.142.190 14:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Logo.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Did Vince McMahon write this article? Vidor 02:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Bolts.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Bolts.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Demons.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Demons.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Enforcers.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Enforcers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Maniax.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Maniax.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Outlaws.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Outlaws.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Rage.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Rage.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFL Xtreme.gif[edit]

Image:XFL Xtreme.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I remember a controversy stemming between one of the coaches of an XFL team and someone else - a commentator, I think. Someone who remembers this event more than I do, or someone who can find more information, should edit this into the article. I remember the whole thing ended up being a farce put on by McMahon to try and up ratings. -- JTHolla! 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to Jesse Ventura heavily criticizing NY/NJ Hitmen Coach Rusty Tillman (sp), calling Tillman "Gutless Rusty" during games and going so far as leaving the announce position to confront Tillman on the sidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazardous Matt (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XFL and NFL champions[edit]

In Tommy Maddox, it says "...is one of three players (along with Bobby Singh and Ron Carpenter) to hold both a Super Bowl ring and XFL championship ring." This article differs with that. I'm not sure which/both is correct. --Rajah (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and updated the whole Super Bowl/XFL participation subsection so that there would be no ambiguities. The data for Super Bowl participants, winners, and dual SB-XFL title holders should contain the both NFL team next to their name and Super Bowl number to be listed and keep the article accurate. Only members of the LA Xtreme should be listed for dual champions. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameramen on Field[edit]

There were also cameramen on the field during play in the XFL. This was quite unique, to say the least. It should be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatboy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vince wanted to buy the CFL?[edit]

I have never heard during the build up the XFL, that Vince wanted to buy the CFL and move it south. Is there any proof of this statement? 154.5.208.104 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on XFL. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 21:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XFL. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for XFL 2020?[edit]

Okay, should we fork out a new article for this, or finally make 2001 XFL season? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Vince has reiterated several times so far in the press announcement that this is "the new XFL".Bbx118 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a new entity, run and operated completely different. I believe we should move this to XFL 2001 and the new article becoming XFL. Vince made it very clear during the press conference that it is a separate entity than the old one. - GalatzTalk 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Basically the only thing that's the same is the logo and name. Sounds like the rules will be quite different. Different ownership structure, etc.Froo (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - I think this will probably be the way to go eventually, but we should wait until there is enough information on the new league for its own article. Autumn Wind (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its clearly a different company run by Alpha Entertainment and is totally separate from WWE. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against. Clearly the same company as McMahon was behind the first. It has been indicate as a revival. Plus NOTNEWS. Many business go through many entities (DreamWorks, Marvel, Disney, Orion- having gone through a revival, United Artist - having gone through two revivals, etc.) so that its not a reason to have a separate article. Spshu (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, a good part of the XFL (2020) article is about its early existence (2001). Spshu (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you watched the press conference to understand how this will work? The teams, structure, rules, everything will be different. He made it very clear this is not the original XFL. Vince made it clear the only reason this is called XFL is because he liked the name. If he would have called it VFL would you be saying the same thing? This is more like American Football League, American Football League (1926), American Football League (1936), and American Football League (1940). It is a completely different football league that just so happens to share the name as a former one.
WP:NOTNEWS definitely doesn't apply. This has been widely covered for over a month already, and you have no basis to believe it will randomly vanish from the news tomorrow. - GalatzTalk 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, does the NFL become a new league every time there is a new team, rule change, corporate structure change? No, it does not. Just because the league has been dormant and its is coming back under new rules, etc. doesn't make a difference as I point out a couple of case of revival. One article United Artist, yes even under different business entities, MGM is the original United Artist as the original MGM is now named Turner Entertainment. McMahon makes it clear that he want to restart it at a later point in time. "I wanted to do this since the day we stopped ..." but team structure has not changed as they will all be owned by the league. The XFL did not merge with the NFL like American Football League, current American Conference of the NFL.
Yes, NOTNEWS, as it was just official announced TODAY (1/25). Speculation has been around, yes, hard news no. This is just an announcement (thus against NOTNEWS), there is no need for me to give any reason for it to "randomly vanish from the news tomorrow" as there are many reasons. Spshu (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You better go nominate 2018 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attack and Turkish military intervention in Afrin for deletion then under the same reasoning. - GalatzTalk 01:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those were not announcements, so not the same reasoning. Spshu (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the difference. I do believe there is enough here to consider this the same league and the same brand, but that the difference in time between them would be worth splitting some of the article on the current XFL page off into 2001 XFL season, and perhaps the current XFL (2020) be moved to 2020 XFL season, thus keeping a main article at XFL as a summary of both, since there is such a strong connection between the two. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support two separate articles - They are clearly separate entities, with different ownership structure, teams, rules, etc. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same leading owner, same season structure and concept, same trademarks. The two XFLs have more in common than the two Arena Football Leagues, for example. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The owner is not the same. The two owners of the old league, WWF and NBC have 0% stake in this. - GalatzTalk 01:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ownership of companies change. Is The Disney Company no longer the Disney Company since the Walt Disney Family and the Roy Disney family no longer have any ownership interest in the Disney Company? The Pre-CC/ABC merger Disney Company is now Disney Enterprise with the post-merger there was a new The Walt Disney Company (the current parent company). McMahon was an owner indirectly through the WWE/WWF and he is as you indicated on my talk page is using the original XFL trademark assets ("he had access to the trademark."). Spshu (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was responding to the comment made. His reasoning is the same owner, which is untrue. Vince did not own a controlling interest in the company himself, he controlled the company through his CEO job of the WWF. If the board decided to fire him, he would have had zero say on the XFL then. Your Disney example again is terrible, Disney never said "We are a completely different company, and the only thing the same as before is that we are known as Disney, nothing else will be the same". Again if this was called the VFL we wouldn't be having this conversation, having it as the XFL is just silly, its not the same entity. - GalatzTalk 15:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not true. McMahon still has a controlling voting power (82.8%) and controlling interest (41.8% of outstanding stock), this even after he sold 4.3% of all common stock as quoted from SEC filings quoted at Wrestling Observer.
            • If it was called the VFL then we should still be having this discussion. Just because the WWF was renamed WWE did not make it a different company.
            • The Disney example is not terrible, it shows that your example of the original owners (WWF & NBC) is false and what we consider Disney had under gone changes in corporate structures (heck in the beginning it was a partnership Disney Bros. Cartoon Studios then split into three companies then merged back into one) shows BilCat's statement that "separate entities, with different ownership structure" is invalid. Spshu (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against. Same name, same boss in charge, so for those two reason keep it all under this umbrella. Paul "The Wall"(talk) 12:38, 26 January 2018 Signature add by Spshu
  • Support two articles Pretty much the only thing that will be the same is Vince McMahon is involved. Otherwise it's a seperate entity, and by the sounds of it new rules, new teams, etc.--Rockchalk717 04:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose XFL (2001) and XFL (2020) instead. These appear to be separate entities and should be treated as such. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second these names for search purposes. Making the title clear will help others find the right article and when they play is more important than when they were founded. Yosemiter (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but eventually the 2020 league, once launch approaches, should be moved to remove the disambiguation, assuming at the time it meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. - GalatzTalk 01:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support two articles per being separate and non-directly related corporate entities. Agreed that McMahon and his trademarked name for the league are the only confirmed similarities. Per the sources it is not a "change in ownership" of the original defunct XFL, just a use of the same trademark, and is an entirely new enterprise. As both leagues already have enough wide coverage and wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, having them separate seems entirely appropriate, especially with direct mentions and links on each article about the other entity. Yosemiter (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having two separate articles would help separate confusion between the original league and the new one so it makes much more logical sense to keep them separate, plus all the reasons in support stated above. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose XFL (1999-2001) and XFL (2018-present). Cards84664 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Sounds to me as if there'll be a lot less interaction between this version and the previous with WWE. If it has to be merged at a later date, so be it.   Aloha27  talk  19:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- I really think it's hard to compare the two until we know more about this new entity. However, the fact that Mr. McMahon is funding it under an entity other than the WWE and says he won't be the face of the operation is the clearest sign the two will be very different and the two articles should be different. Tested1 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't care if it's technically the same company or if it's a totally different company, the content for these articles is going to be vastly different. For the sake of coherent articles, it would be best to keep them separate. If indeed they are the same company we should create a third article to serve as the main article for the entire history of the company.LM2000 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support two articles Move the XFL to XFL (2001) and move this to XFL. This is a completely different entity with the only similarity being Vince McMahon. Otherwise, the companies are completely different. Pinguinn 🐧 10:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just move the old article to the new one's history Blacha61 (talk)] 3:19 AM February 5, 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge into one - Have the history section cover the older incarnation. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait There have been several leagues such as the A-11 Football League which never went off of the ground. The most noticeable precedent should be the New United States Football League which was merged into the USFL article (it also never played a single game. If the new XFL ever begins play then we can at that point more accurately identify the status of the XFLs as a continuation or a different entity.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 September 2019[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: XFL moved to XFL (2001). At this juncture, I see consensus for the page move that was officially requested, but in addition to the "XFL (2020) → XFL" move request not being included in the move request template, I do not see consensus for that move. For the time being, I will replace XFL with XFL (disambiguation), and the "XFL (2020) → XFL" move can be requested separately for further discussion individually if need be. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XFL → XFL (2001) – Based on the pageview statistics https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-01-01&end=2019-09-24&pages=XFL|XFL_(2020) the XFL 2020 league is averaging 2 times the number of views this year. The past month that difference has greatly expanded https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-08-24&end=2019-09-24&pages=XFL|XFL_(2020). With the new league opening in a few months I believe its clear that we have a new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I am currently only requesting that we move this page. There are about 1300 incoming links that would need to be cleaned up. As part of this request I am also requesting that once the incoming links are cleaned up that we move XFL (2020) to the XFL page. I am happy to do the link clean up once the discussion is closed if we get consensus. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support on its face, regardless. Also support the implicit move of XFL (2020) to this title; I think the new league has primacy based on pageviews, and they're likely to have similar significance at worst. However, even without moving the 2020 league, it's obvious that the old league has lost primary topic. Red Slash 23:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to XFL (2001) and having this page as a disambiguation page. If XFL 2020 lasts more than one season, we can revisit it then. Sceptre (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving this article to XFL (2001) but oppose moving the 2020 article to this one. The 2020 league hasn't even played a game, so it's definitely not the primary topic at this time regardless of page views. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sceptre's idea. Too soon to move the new version to the base name; page view stats are skewed by the recentism. A disambiguation page at the base name makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect to 2020 by Default[edit]

I agree with some of the users above that the articles should be merged. However, at a baseline, the 2020-present XFL league's more noteworthy than a league that only ran for 1 season, if indeed they should remain separate Sucker for All (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC) @Illegitimate Barrister: @UCO2009bluejay: @Blacha61: @Paul "The Wall": @JMyrleFuller: @Spshu: @Autumn Wind:[reply]

This may be correct now. Autumn Wind (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. The XFL 2.0 hasn't played a full season yet, let alone two.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:XFL (2020) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XFL_(2001)&oldid=1201890449"