Grey Cup is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 25, 2012.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 25, 2012 Peer review Reviewed September 3, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 4, 2013, December 4, 2015, December 4, 2017, and December 4, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Sport High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport. Canadian football Top‑importance This article 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

I don't know about renaming it, but maybe it wouldn't be quite so Grey if they would polish the durn thing, don'cha know, eh? Wahkeenah 03:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we organize the table of games into a table similar to the one at Vanier Cup. --Zippanova 14:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Except I made a bit of a mess of the field names. Feel free to correct them. --Walter Görlitz 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most practical reason for not including the list of cup games, winners etc is that there have been 98 of them! the list is really long and would weigh this page down. There is a paragraph of information about cup winners on this page, but perhaps a table or list could be made with like Most Wins, Most Appearances etc. One does exist on the page List of Grey Cup Champions already. the editors seem to dislike even the slightest hint of duplication.Donutcity (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why the Ottawa Roughriders were excluded from the table of win/loss/appearances? I know the caption says "active" franchises but it seems like it should include all that played in the professional era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWiatzka (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add a physical description of the cup, and show how it has changed over the years (i.e. the different bases). Also, no mention is made that the original cup was retired (in the 60s or 70s?) and that the current version is a reconstruction (similar to the Stanley Cup)

I remember seeing on tv how the grey cup has such a tradition of being broken. This and a bunch of other things need to be added to this article since it has so much history eh. The Stanley Cup page is a great example and I think this page should be similar Canking 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should talk about the theft and stuff like that so if u r doin a project this page can actually help!--Gm9 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some mention of the event's popularity is needed. year in year out it is among the highest rated television events in Canada with over 4 million viewers

I agree completely Canking 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it now safe to say, that image won't be deleted? GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell - That is NOT the Grey Cup in that photo.

and yet over here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1956_Grey_Cup_victory.jpg

the guy is chugging out of that same trophy as in the Joe Clark photo...

Are there 2 Grey Cups? Plargo (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egads, this page is in need of some SEVERE editing! Some sentences just don't make sense!198.103.134.222 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two responses:

1. Like what, for instance;
2. So fix it.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was there and I recall that it was a song-and-dance routine featuring the various CFL cheerleaders. There was no prominent musician involved, but someone has listed "Brook Wong" as the halftime act. Was this someone who actually performed, or is this merely vandalism? --74.216.10.165 (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can add a picture of the Varsity Stadium in Toronto because it has hosted the most cup matches; or Olympic Stadium in Montreal because holds the top attendance records.Donutcity (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this section could really stand to be expanded. it warrants a whole page if anyone feels like doing the work. a separate page could cover team records, individual records, quarter and half time records; yardage, kicking, scoring etc.Donutcity (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which is supposed to be about the Grey Cup (and not the Grey Cup television broadcast) has a list of the halftime performances but not a list of who won the cup? I understand that there is a link to that list, but the list of halftime performances is totally irrelevant. --DMac (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should be on a separate page if it is even retained. Rather than an incomplete table, it could be replaced on this page by a paragraph that summaries in brief the type of entertainment one can expect. i assume most tv viewers change the channel and most people in the stadium go to the can.Donutcity (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not being Canadian, I would like to ask for someone more knowledgable to add information on the Grey Cup itself? For example, what is the size and weight of the Cup? Is the current Cup still the original one, first issued in 1909? And what about adding new bands, like the Stanley Cup? The article does mention "new plates" being added to the base in 2008, but nothing more. Elsquared (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:1956 Grey Cup victory.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Stallions article has an unsourced statement saying the team averaged "37,347 in 1994 (first in the CFL) and 30,112 in 1995 (second in the CFL)." Assuming these are home attendance figures and the same number of games were played, the numbers don't average to 35,000. Since it doesn't have a source, it is at the moment less reliable than the statement in this article. However, is anyone aware of reliable seasonal attendance numbers for the CFL in 1994 and 1995? (The numbers at [1] and [2] match those in the Stallions article, but I'm unclear if this site should be considered reliable.) isaacl (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is sourced, actually. It is sourced to the Washington Post story (ref 61), which supports both the on-field success and gate attendance. Re-reading it, I did make a small correction, as this is exactly what the story says: "The team has been received enthusiastically in Baltimore, where attendance at Memorial Stadium routinely has been averaging more than 35,000 - almost twice as much for such struggling CFL teams as the Toronto Argonauts and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats." BTW, thanks for the copy edits! Most appreciated. Regards, Resolute 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I assumed (based on your edit comment) that the statement was sourced to the Washington Post article. I understand the reason for the difference now: the article, written in 1994, was only discussing that season's attendance, and > 35,000 aligns with the 1994 attendance figure in the Stallions article. You're welcome regarding the copy edits; they are much easier to do when the article is in good shape to start with! isaacl (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to hear that. I want to see this make FA by the playing of the game, so if you can think of anything missing that needs to be here, let me know! Resolute 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above regarding more info on the trophy is worth considering: some details on how the base has been changed over the years would be interesting. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have a non-RS that gives the years of the changes, but I can't find it in RSes. Fortunately, I've been able to get pictures of each of the three designs, at least. The hunt for technical details on the trophy is my priority, atm. Resolute 00:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Canadian Football League article, "In 1956, the IRFU and WIFU formed a new umbrella organization, the Canadian Football Council (CFC), and in 1958, the CFC left the CRU, becoming the Canadian Football League." Can anyone confirm that the CFC was part of the CRU until it became the CFL? If it is true, then I'd like to include the CFC leaving the CRU in this article. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Montreal Gazette source I used in the article, the CFL initially remained a member of the CRU, even though it took control of the Grey Cup: [3]. I suspect the CFL's association with the CRU was arms-length right from the beginning, but there are articles well into the 1960s of CFL-CRU dinners at the Grey Cup where the CRU honoured people for service in either organization. When the formal, complete split happened, I am not certain. But that may be more relevant for the CFL and Football Canada articles than this. Resolute 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I was trying to figure out if the language "worked to distance" could be re-worded in some way to better explain the situation, or sourced. Is this something described in Theile? isaacl (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to get the book back from the library. I do think some of the articles from the time on Google News Archive should help us provide sufficient context. Resolute 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just simplified the statement to "they distanced themselves..." to get by the awkward language. The important statement for this article is that the CFL assumed control of the Grey Cup, imo. I'd say the politics between the CFL and CRU quickly becomes off-topic at that point. Resolute 01:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right—I was wondering if it was necessary to mention distancing at all. Nonetheless at least removing the "worked at" is good. isaacl (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it helps explain how the Cup (and the senior game itself) separated itself from the CRU's control. Shows the progression from the unions working under the CRU banner to parallel to operating outside of it. Resolute 01:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this recent edit, according to the cited reference on the Canadian Football Hall of Fame site, the trophy was donated as an "award for the amateur rugby football championship of Canada." I'm not sure how literally this statement should be interpreted (it isn't very assertive in its wording); has anyone come across other statements on the purpose of the donated trophy? isaacl (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read the comment in the featured article review, so I understand the purpose of the edit, and the background around the terminology. isaacl (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for the lead the simplification suffices, I think. Minimizes confusion for readers unfamiliar with the sport. Resolute 18:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My usual practice is to link to terms the first time they are referred to in a section, to make it easier for readers to find an appropriate link with minimal disruption to their current place in the article; I see though that this has gone out of fashion at Wikipedia's style guidelines for linking and, naturally with all such minor formatting issues, it has engendered a large debate on the corresponding talk page. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to favour a middle ground approach to this, though I do agree with Giants2008 in the FAC that I inadvertently overlinked this article. All of the current teams now have two links in the article body: the first on their first mention, and the second in the championship history section. I think that strikes a good balance for this article. Resolute 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am the one who added all those extra links (following my personal preference ;-). Other than for teams mentioned in the lead section, I assume the first mention is in the championship history section, since it is the first section? isaacl (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The attendance figures from the referenced newspapers disagree with the figures from the 2011 Grey Cup record book which is also used as a reference. In general, I would prefer to rely on the official CFL statistics for the basic objective facts of the games. Would you have any objection to adding a note for the Toronto and Ottawa number of games hosted as a reminder that they each hosted a game of the 28th Grey Cup in 1940? I realize this is a contradiction in my requests as the CFL doesn't note it in its similar table. But for a while I was confused as to why there have been 100 host cities for only 99 Cups. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on the note for the two-game, two-host year. I will add that. However, looking at the attendance, I actually believe the CFL accidentally shifted the attendance somewhere. Note that for 1958, they list Vancouver at 27,391, yet the papers of the time show 34,426 - the figure the CFL record sheet has for 1959 in Toronto! The 27,391 figure cited is actually the total for 1957 in Toronto. Resolute 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. As for the attendance numbers I just realized that I'm looking at a slightly different record book from cfl.ca selecting STATS and opening Grey Cup under Historical Records. Although its title indicates 2011, it doesn't include the 2011 game. This list is closer to the newspaper results and matches the official annual Grey Cup recap pages: 39,417 in 1955; 27,051 in 1957; 36,567 in 1958; 33,133 in 1959; 53,467 in 1976; 68,318 in 1977. Sorry I should have given the link and its numbers to avoid this confusion. 99.246.116.118 (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just lovely. Nice to see the CFL contradicts itself then. The record book link you used appears (given the page numbers) to be part of the 2011 CFL media guide. As it was published before last season began, it wouldn't have the 2011 GC. The one I used is either part of the 2012 guide, or is a stand-alone supplement for Grey Cup records (thus no page numbers). All references agree on the 1955 Vancouver attendance (once you account for the shifted line in my link), so that's good. The discrepancy is with 1976. Papers of the time and my PDF say one thing, your link gives a slightly different figure. Given the CFL doesn't agree with itself, I am going to leave the figure cited in the newspaper. First, it was a report of the announced attendance at the game. Second, it supports both the number and the fact that it was a record. And third, the link I used states at the very end that all statistics from 1951-onwards were "comprehensively reviewed" for accuracy in 2011. So it is believable that, their typographical error aside, they realized previous guides were posting incorrect figures, and that the 53,389 figure is correct, and was corrected for the 2012 releases. Thanks for the links though. It's always useful to double check these things! Resolute 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the off topic comment but I swear the first time I saw that pic it was a Darlek! Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 10:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this air on American television (ESPN)?72.174.134.72 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]