Talk:American Football Conference

‹ The template below (WikiProject National Football League) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

National Football League: Steelers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL 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.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Steelers task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the American_Football_Conference article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/American_Football_Conference}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doubt and Suggestion

Hi. I just read the article, and as someone who knew nothing about how the game is organized, I was left with:

1) A doubt: about those 10 games "assigned by the NFL to each team's schedule", it was not clear to me if those games are against only teams from the AFC of if this could include teams from the NFC too. Also, are those 10 games against 10 different teams or is it 5 teams (format home & away)?

2) A suggestion: it would be interesting to list all the four-team divisions. We have a list of all the teams that make up the AFC (on the board at the bottom of the article), but then we don't know who is whose division (and therefore always play each other twice every season). Or does those divisions change from season to season? If so, that would be worth mentioning in the article.

Regards, Redux 21:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Browns and Ravens

OK, I totally agree with the edit if it's in line with WP policy in general, but... ugh. This is where the whole "official line" on the Browns/Ravens relocation/expansion becomes a bit difficult to reconcile with reality. It's a paragraph on the number of teams in the AFC. The AFC didn't expand to 16 teams until 1999, but the article as amended makes it sound like the Browns and Ravens both played in 96, 97 and 98. To make sense *and* tow the Modell party line, it should read something like "The Ravens joined in 1996, and at the same time the Cleveland Browns became inactive for 3 years; when Cleveland resumed play in 1999, membership of the AFC rose to 16 teams". But not that, because it sounds terrible. Help? 81.104.160.179 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worded it as "Due to the relocation controversy of the Cleveland Browns, a new AFC franchise called the Baltimore Ravens was offically established in 1996 while the Browns were "reactivated" in 1999." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's much better IMHO. Thanks! 81.104.160.179 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oldafclogo.JPG

Image:Oldafclogo.JPG 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 ensure 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) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Logo

I'm putting the new logo in - blogs are not always considered reliable sources, but this blog is run by Paul Lukas, who writes about sports design for ESPN.com. Per the guidelines:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Lukas and ESPN meet the criteria, so his own posts on the blog (and his own posts alone) may be considered a reliable source. SixFourThree (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Football Conference. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506134900/http://www.uniwatchblog.com/2010/03/02/but-i-absolutely-refuse-to-write-about-the-draft-caps/ to http://www.uniwatchblog.com/2010/03/02/but-i-absolutely-refuse-to-write-about-the-draft-caps/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former AFL teams

I may have overlooked it, but I don't see anything in this article explicitly stating the fact that all 10 of the AFL teams that formed the initial AFC upon the merger with the NFL have remained in the AFC ever since. Given the number of reorganizations that the NFL has gone through since then, this seems significant (or at least interesting) enough to be mentioned. --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]