Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Notability question

Hi there. I seem to recall that your project generally considers head coaches to be notable, but what about guys who have only been an assistant coach? The article I have in mind is Kevin Cosgrove (American football). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistant coaches are not presumed notable, and need to meet the general notability guideline. At present, that article doesn't demonstrate notability, and in fact, it might even be speedy-deleted, since there's not really even an assertion of importance. cmadler (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll give him a PROD and see what happens from there. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

***Important***

There is a Template for Deletion discussion brewing that will most likely have long-reaching impacts on WikiProject College football, WikiProject College Basketball, and WikiProject College Baseball. I encourage everyone to read Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 28#Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Big Ten Conference football standings

I threw together List of Big Ten Conference football standings by collating the 100+ standings templates going back to 1896. We have something similar at Big 12 Conference football, though the Big 12 has a much shorter history. The big problem with this list is that the number of calls to Template:Cfb link is excessive and we run into a problem starting in 1968 with the links not rendering properly. A way to get around this would be to create a whole lot of team redirects. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be useful to subst all of the templates?  –Nav  ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 01:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but then that removes flexibility if we make formatting changes to the basic standings template; plus, the 2010 standings haven't really been resolved with respect to the whole Ohio State vacation business. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point (I was going to say leave the final year as a template until the standings are final). The only other option I can think of then is simply coding the links in and let them be red (encouraging another use to create the article)  –Nav  ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The recent years aren't even a problem, because we've got a full complement of yearly team articles going back to 2006. I think we'd be better off creating redirects than red-linking the standings templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Big Ten Name History

Question: From 1939 to 1949 there was only 9 football teams and officially in 1946 there were only 9 teams in the Big Ten. According to some sources, during this time, the Big Ten began being referred to as the Big 9. In 1950 when Michigan State joined, it went to Big 10 and never looked back. I have a similar question about pre-1916 when it was officially known as the "Western Conference." Some sources even say that the name "Western Conference" stuck until 1952. Thoughts? The reason why I bring it up is I'm working on early Wisconsin seasons and the templates all say "Big Ten" and only "Big Ten" Kallman1 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Kallman1

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:American football offensive guards

Category:American football offensive guards, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.--Giants27(T|C) 01:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming for Louisana's Sun Belt Conference schools

There is no consistency in the naming of the categories and articles for the sports teams at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and the University of Louisiana at Monroe; see:

• Category:Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns
• Category:ULM Warhawks

ESPN uses Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin Cajuns and Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks. I am leaning toward those two with the more grammatically correct use of the endash: Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns and Louisiana–Monroe Warhawks. But there's also the more locally popular Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns and ULM Warhawks. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is a huge can of worms. Previous attempts to find consensus just for Louisiana-Lafayette have been inconclusive, which is why things are as they are. cmadler (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The current state of affairs should be less desirable to all than either side of a debate about optimal naming. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the current state of affairs is at all desirable, simply that I think reaching consensus is unlikely. cmadler (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

3,000 cats

Hey, WP:CFB recently surpassed its 3,000th category. Thought it'd be a fun thing to mention :) Jrcla2 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

30,000 total elements as well: Category:College football articles by quality. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Head coaches who never coached a game

Should head coaches who were appointed, but never coached a game for a given team, either because of dismissal, resignation, or death, be included in coach navboxes? The three examples I have come across are Bo Rein (LSU), George O'Leary (Notre Dame), and Mike Price (Alabama). In the case of Rein, who died in plane crash soon after his appointment, he is included in the list of head coaches found in LSU's media guide; see http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=205181481, page 180. I'm going to guess that O'Leary and Price are not mentioned in Notre Dame and Alabama literature given that they were dismissed under scandalous circumstances. All three of these examples have been categorized as a coach for the team in question. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that when they have been hired and actually begun work as a head coach, we should list them as such. This is in opposition to how we treat interim head coaches, who are generally only listed if they actually coached a game (c.f. Addazio at Florida). cmadler (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Treat them how the universities or NCAA treat them, or it is WP:OR. Personally, I see no difference between this and the interim requirement to coach one game (which I think the NCAA would use), but it is ultimately a university decision on who to officially recognize as coaches, not a Wikipedia editor decision. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A university is not only not the only source for who was a head coach, they are not the best source due to their interest in the matter. Consider the recent example of Michael Haywood. I'm sure Pitt would like nothing more than for the world to forget he had any association with them, but there are plenty of published reports, including one from ESPN in the article, indicating that not only did Pitt hire him, but that he began work there before being fired two weeks later. Saying that Haywood was the head coach of Pitt is not OR -- in fact, I'd argue that it would be OR to ignore reliable published reports based on a Wikipedia editor decision. cmadler (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are really only three official sources: The universities, the conferences, and the NCAA. What anyone else thinks, including the press, is irrelevant or WP:POV because they do not keep the official records of the school, conference or NCAA. If Pitt decides he wasn't a coach, because the reality is he never conducted even one practice, never even got paid, and the program was actually in the charge of Phil Bennett at the time, then that is their business as they maintain the official list of all-time coaches for the school and the criteria by which they judge such things. Likewise, the Big East maintains the official conference records and the NCAA maintains the official records for D1 football overall; not ESPN. When sources conflict on lists of official things, the official lists are what matters, otherwise it is WP:OR. This doesn't prevent commentary on the week-long association that Pitt had with him in the text of articles, but this is essentially the same argument as the one above about official records in the vacation and forfeiture of wins. It is also similar to a prior University Wikiproject discussion about who is, and who is not, an alumni of a particular school (it is up to the school: some require graduation, some require only attendance). As long as the policies are applied consistently within the particular entity (e.g. coach a game or a practice requirement), I don't see how there can be an argument as to how the official records dictate it. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right in drawing the comparison to the vacancy/forfeiture debate, but you give the same wrong answer. First, let's be clear about OR. According to the policy, The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. In other words, if a reliable published source exists for a statement, that statement is not OR. So right off, we can know that our referring to Haywood as a head coach at Pitt is not OR, because a reliable published source exists (ESPN article) for that statement. Then we have the question of how to treat conflicting sources. One possibility is to simply acknowledge the disagreement. "According to published reports, Haywood was hired and began work as Pitt's head coach.[cite ESPN] However, the university omits him from their list of historical head coaches.[cite Pitt]" But, the Pitt athletic department, like most (probably all) athletic departments, is self-published, and so we need to be cautious with that source. Particularly, we are warned at the reliable source guideline to avoid self-published sources that are unduly self-serving; there's a strong argument to be made that omitting a disgraced former coach from their records is unduly self-serving. Finally, in the case of Haywood, since he's still living, we need to abide by the BLP policy, part of which states "Never use self-published sources...as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". cmadler (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox

Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox was deleted despite 9 to 2 support for it in the discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox. WTF? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to ask the closing administrator why they made the decision they did. If you don't get an acceptable answer, you can bring the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Be prepared to have the administrator tell you that deletion debates are not a "vote." However, this administrator didn't really explain why they made their decision. —Ute in DC (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed ask the closing admin. Awaiting a reply. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Got a reply. See: User talk:JPG-GR#Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and recreated the template (because the deletion was total BS), created a new stub for another one of the coaches, and beefed up List of San Diego State Aztecs head baseball coaches. Nonetheless, a bad precedent has been sent, or reinforced. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Help with Scott Lutrus

I just created this article, but I'm not exactly a football article writer. Anyone want to jump in and complete it for a co-DYK? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I can with the sources I can find. There are two statements that I marked as needing citations that I didn't see mentioned in the sources I looked at, and once those are done it will be ready for DYK. cmadler (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. The statements were buried in the Huskies' official bio. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Helmets in place of logos on rivalry pages

User Nascarking has been editing various college football rivalry info boxes to substitute helmet icons for school logos, e.g. here. Some of his edits were a bit sloppy (on one page he had two identical helmets showing and on another he paired a helmet with a logo) and I raised that issue on his Talk page. He seems to be a bit more careful now but he's continuing with the changes and given the potential touchiness of changes to rivalry pages, I thought I'd raise the issue here to see if anyone cares about the change in general. The edits are not entirely to my taste but it's possible that I'm the one being too touchy. Thoughts, comments, welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To comply with Wikipedia fair use policy, he needs to put a "non-free media use rationale" on each file he uses. Most helmets are copyrighted and therefore fall under Wikipedia's fair use policy. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think helmets for the rivalry pages are a bad idea. They do a good job, perhaps better than the logos, of conveying the "rivalry" or "head-to-headness", or whatever you want to call it. But, they should only be put in if they look good. The helmets on Florida–Florida State football rivalry are misaligned and of different styles. If we can match the styles of the helmets, I'm all for them. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The helmet images are non-free I can't see any way that it could be justifiable to add them to. In the Florida–Florida State football rivalry, for example, the free logos are just as good for illustrating the rivalry as the helmets and those images are free. See WP:NFCC#8: we only use non-free images if their omission would be a significant detriment to the readers' understanding of the topic. Jenks24 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm stuck editing on an iPhone for a bit - does someone want to raise these concerns on the editor's talk page? JohnInDC (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jenks24: it is flatly inappropriate to replace free content with non-free content. cmadler (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Willy Fetzer

Resolved

 – Content merged into Bill Fetzer. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Willy Fetzer , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The NCAA database (http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch) lists him as "Willam M. Fetzer". This looks like a no-brainer, non-controversial merger to me. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Multiple football deletions discussion

There are currently 20 football articles up for deletion. That's by far the most football articles up for deletion at the same time, at least for as long as I recall. I'm working my way through them to determine which are legitimate. Anyone wishing to help can check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football. That pages is a good one to keep on your watch lists, if you don't do so already. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There were actually 53 open as of yesterday, many of which were closed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for name change reversion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gordon Paiʻea Chung-Hoon. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Mr. Football Award

I know this template is not a CFB template, but there is no HS football project. I just created this template and only found 7 of the 50 states. I thought that I would note that this template needs help in getting filled in with possible other states using a different naming convention from Mr. Football Award (State).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD nomination of coach

Resolved

 – AfD closed, article kept. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While the subject is not under the purview of this project, it is relevant as it concerns a college sports coach. If interested, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton L. Riggs. Strikehold (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Auburn-Florida football rivalry

Resolved

 – AfD closed, article kept. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not know this article existed until I saw that a rookie editor had submitted it for AfD as "non-notable." Please feel free to share your opinion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn-Florida football rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Team season navboxes

I've been doing some more housekeeping in the template department. I've standardized the naming and colors for the team season navboxes, based on what we've done with the coach navboxes. These season navboxes can be found here: Category:American college football team seasons navigational boxes. What we don't have yet is a standard form for these navboxes. Moreover, only 46 teams have one of these. Many other teams use their main program navbox to navigate through seasons. Some program navboxes list only some seasons (e.g. Template:Miami Hurricanes Football), while others have a full list of seasons (e.g. Template:NebraskaCornhuskersFootballNavbox). So the questions are:

1. Do we need dedicated season navboxes, and, if so, should the main program navbox also list seasons?
2. Assuming we decide we need season navboxes, what form should they take? I like Template:Michigan Wolverines football season navbox for its neatness and simplicity. Other examples include sections for championship teams, e.g. Template:Ole Miss Rebels football season navbox.
3. Should these navboxes be collapsed by default? Many are likely to be placed on articles where they are the lone navbox.

We could definitely use some coordination here. The number of season articles is always growing and newbies will often replicate these templates based on one they happen to stumble upon. In the same effort, we probably ought to work on some standardization for the main program navboxes as well. See Category:American college football team navigational boxes. There are a couple of different dominant forms. One type looks like Template:USCTrojansFootball and another like Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox.

Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm not sold one way or the other on dedicated season navboxes versus only a general program navbox. I can see arguments both ways. I'd suggest that more prominent programs with a more developed set of articles (e.g. Michigan) might be better off with a dedicated season navbox, while less prominent programs with a less developed set of articles could make do with a single general navbox, at least until their article set develops sufficiently. Call it the summary style approach to navbox development.
2. If we go with the simpler style used by Michigan, there should be some indication (asterisk, hash, caret, dagger, etc.) for national and conference championships (I don't think division championships need to be indicated).
3. I favor the autocollapsed state, which is the default. If it's the only navbox in the article, it will be open, but if there are any other navboxes, it will collapse.

cmadler (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My two bits worth:

1. I favor a general football program navbox that incorporates the team's season links. If the program navbox exists, the seasons navbox becomes redundant. I see no need for a separate seasons navbox anywhere; the general program navbox can be used on the main team, rivalry and season articles. (The general program navbox is overkill for individual coach and player articles, however, especially when the coach and player pages already have multiple navboxes.)

2. If the list of seasons is incorporated into the general program navbox, the conference and national championships should be separately listed, with separate links to the relevant conference and national championship articles. Thus, no need for asterisks, daggers, carets, etc., on the season links. No one is a bigger proponent of appropriate notations and footnoting than me, but their effectiveness is greatest when their use is limited in templates and tables. For example, if every notation option is used on the current CFB records table templates, the resulting table is so junked up that it becomes difficult for a reader to quickly discern the primary information sought—opponent and score. Fewer, more meaningful notations are better.

3. As a rule of thumb, any navbox that is bigger than four or five lines should be set to collapsed state, as a courtesy to readers; smaller navboxes can be set to autocollapse.

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject College football managment

I've been doing some work over the past week or so to clean up the main project page and related project articles to improve organization and conciseness and update or kill stale content. There's quite a lot of work needed to make the project resources truly accurate and useful for participants (newbies and veterans), so if anyone would like to help out with things like the peer review page or some of the guides and resources (e.g. style guide or image use essay), that would be great. Most of these documents haven't been developed much in the least couple years and could use some work. Moreover, many standards have been developed in practice over the past two or three years, but never documented anywhere.

The Portal:College football is also very stale and it might be worthwhile to resurrect the project newsletter, perhaps on a quarterly basis. Thoughts about those two items?

One of things I've done so far is to update the project participant list, moving anyone who hasn't made a college football-related edit in that last year or has been very active in general of late to the inactive list. It would be nice to keep a fairly accurate active roster on hand for recruiting help with things like clean-up and assessment drives. If you're not already on there, please add yourself to the list and encourage others to list themselves there. You can also the fly the project banner on your user page.

It seems that many of the editors who built the foundations of this project, guys like MECU, Nmajdan, and JKBrooks85, have moved on to other things. To breath some new life into the project, it may be worthwhile for a some of the active contributors to take the lead in a few key areas, which I've outlined below. I've thrown some ideas out about potential candidates, but by all means, anyone should feel free to get involved anywhere.

• Assessment (Cmadler's done a lot of work here of late regarding priority)
• Project goals / to do list / cleanup (?)
• Style guide and article formats, e.g. Yearly team pages format (Patriarca12 has done some great work of late with Alabama football, which is about as best-in-class style-wise as anything we've got)
• Templates (I've done a lot of work here already, so I'm happy to take the lead on this one)
• Image use (Strikehold?)
• Reliable sources / research tips (Cbl62 is a guru in this area)
• Notability (Paulmcdonald has lot of experience here)
• Portal (?)
• Newsletter (?)
• Coordination with other sports-related WikiProjects (Jrcla2 seems like the guy here)
• Quality control, particularly for current season content (Bsuorangecrush?)
• Covert intel / black ops (Dirtlawyer1?) ;)

Anything I missed? Thoughts in general? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue to work on assessment, though once we get an importance scale settled (soon I think), of course, it will take a lot of work to get our 30,000+ existing articles rated. As an aside, relating to image use, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Images#Logos needs a little work. I'm remembering the Great College Sports Logo Debate of 2009 (and trying to remember the resolution). Also, I link to User:Buffs/FBS Trademarked logos (or even copy/move it to projectspace) would be useful there. cmadler (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Southland Conference navboxes

Resolved

 – Through much debate, the new version will remain (i.e. the navbox without two components). It reinforces standardization. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Southland Conference navboxes. I'm catching flack from an identity politicker. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Redshirts on championship team templates

I'm curious what the project believes is the best way to address players who redshirted the year of a championship. Should they be included in that team's template for the roster? For example, at Template:1996 Florida Gators football, some users have been adding Thaddeus Bullard to the template. Bullard was with the team in 1996, but was a redshirt and didn't play until 1997 (confirmed here: http://www.gatorzone.com/football/bios.php?year=2000&bio=bullard.html). Should players like Bullard be on the template for a championship? Or should they be left off as they did not participate? either way (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't they just add the starting 22 to those templates anyway? He obviously didn't start if he was a redshirt. ~ Richmond96 t • c 13:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Policy seems to be to add anyone who was on the team, including backups, to these navboxes, e.g. Tom Brady on Template:1997 Michigan Wolverines football. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Starters, back-ups, second-string, third-string, fourth-string, anybody who dressed for a game, absolutely. Redshirts, no. Redshirts were not eligible to play. If the redshirt was not eligible to play, he wasn't part of the team of record, and should not be included in the championship team navbox. The conclusion follows logically from the question of eligibility. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that, except in the case of required redshirts (academic ineligibility, transfers, etc.), a redshirted player is eligible to play, but then they would lose the redshirt and it would cost them a season of eligibility. For example, in 2004, Clay Matthews III turned down several opportunities to play in garbage time in order to preserve his redshirt status. cmadler (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. Inelegantly phrased on my part. Bottom line: a redshirt cannot play in a game and be a redshirt (with limited NCAA-defined exceptions for medical redshirts). Bullard was not a medical redshirt and appeared in no games in 1996; his redshirting was a conscious decision of the Gators coaches. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Accepting, then that it's not simply a matter of eligibility, is there a meaningful difference between a player who sees the field for 1-2 plays of garbage time in one game out of a season and a player who does not get on the field at all? When a team gives out championship rings, do players who redshirted usually get them? cmadler (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Marshall's infobox image

Hello. This WikiProject may be interested in an ongoing discussion at Talk:Brandon Marshall#Infobox images. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:BCS conferences

Resolved

 – Merge executed. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated Category:BCS conferences for an up-merge. Please comment. Thanks Jweiss11 (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Coaches info needed

Hey gang, I've been working on 2011 Heart of America Athletic Conference football season and another season article, but I don't have much time now to work on the coaches articles (or stadiums for that matter) for the teams in the conference. If anyone can pitch in, I'd appreciate it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

More conference realignment speculation

I'm sure all of you know that we're in another period of rampant speculation about conference realignment. Right now, most of the attention is focused on Texas A&M and their potential move to the SEC. Can a few folks please keep an eye on the relevant articles e.g. Big 12 Conference, Texas A&M University‎, Texas A&M Aggies‎? The speculation is starting to get a bit out-of-hand in some of these articles with some editors adding information that is sourced from articles that are more gossip than news and other editors simply asserting that schools have already switched conferences. Please help keep these encyclopedia articles and not gossip rags. ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Should a new article be created for this round of realignment? Nothing really has happened yet except for A&M leaving and not yet going to SEC. But with all the speculation and now the threats of lawsuits, should it be it's own article, similar to 2010–11 NCAA conference realignment? Jaysscholar (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Uploading photos from a personal collection

So, I made contact with the daughter of William C. Heiss who has edited the article about her father under the user name Mheisswehde. She's emailed me a cache of newspaper clippings and images about her father, who is alive and well at age 88. The photos, she says, are from a personal collection. She'd like to release them for use on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what license is appropriate. She is not the creator of these images, but seems to have the rights to them (or does she?). Does she need to upload them? Can I upload them for her? Please comment if you have some insight here. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Some reading material, I'm not 100% sure which to suggest depending on which is easier/applicable: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online, Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. You need to make sure that she is the copyright holder of these images, though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vacation all I ever wanted, vacation time to get away...

More NCAA "vacation" BS to keep in mind: [1]. Could play significantly given Denard Robinson's prominent presence in the record books. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cecil Newton

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Cecil_Newton regarding who is the primary Newton.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox

Resolved

 – Deleted, then recreated. Stable now. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. Please comment. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ALERT! Important deletion discussion...please weigh in!

Resolved

 – Deleted, then recreated. Stable now. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox Jweiss11 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This template appears to be okay for now. But I'm not happy about recent deletion events. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Resolved

 – Discussion closed. All templates deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done a little template housekeeping and have nominated a few for discussion (deletion):

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#College football rosters and depth charts
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox NCAA FCS football school
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox MHSAA football school
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:NCAATeamFirstFootballSeason

Jweiss11 (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One more: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Notre Dame Fighting Irish football schedules. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Using "Resolved" tags?

Resolved

 – Resolved tags now in use on this discussion page. This is pretty self-referential. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think using the "Resolved" tag is a great way to keep track of what issues on this talk page don't need any further conversation. I've been plugging the template into each satisfied WT:CBBALL section, and it seems to work well (admittedly, I lifted the idea from WT:NBA). Just a suggestion. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:NBA used to do it... Jrcla2 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll aim to my that my practice as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

2 proposed page moves

Resolved

 – Page moves executed. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:UW–Green Bay Phoenix#Move? and at Talk:UW–Green Bay Phoenix men's basketball#Move?. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Coach box

Resolved

 – Issue resolved. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble with the coach box at John Baricevic... anyone help?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you've used outdated field names for that template. See Template:Infobox college coach for the latest and greatest. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Game Delay article

Resolved

 – Article redirected to Rainout (sports). Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I started up Delay (game) today, but (as usual for me) I'm not very good at wordsmithing. However, I can tell we need such an article not just for football but for all sports. Anyone want to take a stab at it? It seems this season we have lots of weather delays.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

College Football Hall of Fame & coaches

In my FLC nomination for the List of Arkansas Razorbacks head football coaches an issue arose regarding whether or not coaches who have been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame as a player only should be highlighted on a coaches list as being in the HOF. Since these lists are specifically for head coaches, I believe only persons inducted as coaches should be highlighted on the coaches lists. In the case of Arkansas list, it makes no sense to me to highlight George McLaren (American football) as listed in the HOF since he was inducted as a player with nothing he accomplished as Arkansas coach included as part of his HOF profile. On the other side of the argument, there are coaches like Darrell Royal whose tenures at Miss State and Washington probably were not considered much in his inclusion in the HOF as a coach due to his accomplishments at Texas. However, his official HOF bio lists his tenures at Miss State, Washington and Texas as being where he coached and therefore is appropriate to note as being in the HOF on the Miss State, Washington and Texas coaches lists. Ultimately, I am agreeable to whatever consensus is reached regarding this. Thoughts on this are appreciated. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Patriarca12, thanks for bringing this up here. Patriarca12 and I have discussed this issue a bit elsewhere. I'm in favor of highlighting all HOF inductees on these coach lists whether the individual in question was inducted as a coach, player, or otherwise, like Ed Hall, who was inducted as a coach and contributor. He coached only two years at Illinois, but his induction appears to be heavily weighted by his administrative work; his profile also references his career at Dartmouth (not sure if this is for his playing career there or his later service as a trustee of the college). Patriarca12 brings up a good point about how the HOF profiles delineate the scope of the induction. But I wonder if guys like Harry G. Kipke or Johnny Majors weren't inducted as coaches because they were already in as players. Amos Alonzo Stagg and Bowden Wyatt are the only guys separately inducted as a player and as a coach. If we go only with notation for inductions expressly as coaches, it brings into question the presentation and significance of the following passage at List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches: "Michigan had nine head coaches between 1900 and 1989, each of whom has been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame either as a coach or as a player..." I'll also add that they integrity of the data at the College Football Hall of Fame website is not great, so perhaps the profiles there need to be taken with a grain of salt. Other thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been clearly drawing that distinction on Florida Gators CFB articles. The Gators currently have 10 CFBHOF members, including six who were inducted as players (including one player (Spurrier) who will undoubtedly be inducted as a coach, too; and four inducted as coaches, including one former player who coached the Gators (Dickey), and another former player who was inducted for coaching elsewhere (Huerta). The current list of Florida Gators head football coaches, as created by Patriarca, does not include a reference to Spurrier as a CFBHOF member. No coach just gets inducted into the HOF because he was a great player; modern era coaches have to satisfy the threshold minimum .600 career winning average, which eliminates most candidates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to highlight the ones who have been inducted as player or coach, but to note (by footnote or somehow) those who have been inducted only as players. Cbl62 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for footnotes for those inducted as players. Something like what we have for Jim Crowley at List of college football coaches with a .750 winning percentage should work. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

New discussion of navboxes and succession boxes at the Village pump

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using navboxes where succession boxes would suffice. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

losing score first

Over the last few years everyone has begun listing the losing score first. So the score of the team the page is about is always listed first for a win or a loss. Why was this started when this template, Template:CFB Schedule Entry, clearly shows the higher score first? Should this template be changed to show how everyone's been doing it for a few years now? I'm all for listing it the new way and 119 of the 120 team pages list it the new way. But one user keeps listing Western Michigan's pages with the higher score first and sources this template as why he does it so its the only team page that is not consistent with the other 119. If 119 team pages do it then shouldn't that be the standard and be reflected in this template?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of the historical Ohio State and Michigan articles list higher score first as well. This isn't as cut and dry as 119 to 1, although that may be the case for the 2011 articles. There should indeed be a uniform standard here and it should be reflected in the CFB Schedule Entry template. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I know most of the older historical pages list the higher score first. It has only began the last 3 or 4 years. I never questioned it, I just did it that way because I believe that the templates for the team pages during the same year should be the same. So should we contiune on new pages to do losing score first or change them to how it is in the template or change the template and continue to do it the new way?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the higher score should be listed first, since that's how you'd say it in prose (i.e. "we lost the game 21 to 7", not "we lost the game 7 to 21"). If the "W" or "L" did not exist, then I could see a case for putting the team in question's score first, but that is not the case. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I lean toward agreeing with X96lee15 on higher score first. He makes good points about how that form mirrors common prose and that the W/L indictors should dispel any potential ambiguity about who won the game. The two formats appear to both be represented by authoritative sites around the web:

Higher score first:

• ESPN [2]
• Michigan website: [3]
• Oklahoma website: [4]
• Notre Dame website: [5]
• Big Ten website: [6]

Subject team score first:

• Florida website: [7]
• Big Ten weekly release (p. 12): [8]

Methodology around the sports world on Wikipedia appears also to be mixed:

Higher score first:

• 1961 New York Yankees season
• 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season

Subject team score first:

• 2011 New York Yankees season
• 2003–04 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team
• 1995–96 Chicago Bulls season
• 1985 Chicago Bears season

Hockey (e.g. 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season) appears to use a third scheme where the subject and its opponent are each placed in home/away columns to either side of the score column. Each team's score is on their side of the score column. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I too had "heard somewhere" that the losing score would go first, so I've always done it that way, even though I agree that it doesn't make sense if you have the W or L. However, I would like to know exactly how that got started? Presumably, there are reasons for doing it that way... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Losing/subject score first makes sense to me if you're going to have separate columns for points scored and points allowed that total up for the season, a la the College Football Data Warehouse, e.g. [9]. The practice of losing score first probably started simply because one or more editors decided that's was the best way to do it and it grew from there. In late 2009, I stubbed out the majority of the historical Michigan football season articles and did the schedules with winning score first, per the template example. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In body text, I think the higher score should almost always be placed first, following the usual American verbal convention, as long as it is crystal clear from the written context who the winner and loser are. With regard to the various formats of records tables, it depends. As Jweiss correctly points out, where there are separate columns for the opposing teams' scores, the columns lock-in the order. In some rivalry game records tables, where only a single column is used for the combined score, higher score first is also sensible for consistency, and the tables are color-coded for the winners. In the season records table of a single team, I believe that the score of the subject team should always be presented first. This is logical (we are talking about the subject team's performance, relative to its opponents, after all), and the order of scores is consistent from line to line (placing the higher score first illogically reverses the order for every loss). There is nothing wrong with reinforcing any background color coding (green for wins, etc.) or character coding ("W" or "L") that are also present in the current template-based version of the the CFB season records table. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bowl Challenge Cup winners

Resolved

 – Template deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated Template:Bowl Challenge Cup winners for deletion. Please comment. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

TFDs of POY templates

Resolved

 – Templates kept. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 15#Template:Big Ten Conference Athlete of the Year navbox, there is a TFD that is relevant to CFB.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year navbox}} and {{Chicago Tribune Silver Football navbox}} also in separate TFDs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 VCU Rams football team for deletion

Resolved

 – Redirected to VCU Rams Jweiss11 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 VCU Rams football team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 VCU Rams football team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

Louisiana's / Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns

Resolved

 – Moves completed. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed name moves for Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns and Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns football. Please see Talk:Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns and comment. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No one has weighed in on this discussion yet. Please comment. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

On Rivals.com they are listed as Lousiana-Lafayette, and on NCAA Football 12 they are listed as UL-Lafayette. But since the school is officially University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and other schools that are a branch, such as University of California at Los Angeles is listed as UCLA, I think that we should list them as ULL and ULM DMC511 (talk) 8:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ESPN and Rivals.com ought to trump video games. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

College sports template cleanup

I'm working on a (not so) little project to clean up college sports templates; see Category:American college sports templates. There's really quite a lot of messiness out there. My goal is to standardize the naming, categorization, design/coloring, and usage of these templates. We have four major types of templates:

• Infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox college coach)
• Other "functional" templates (e.g. Template:CFB Schedule Entry): templates that take arguments to render content conditionally, often in tabular format
• Navboxes (e.g. Template:Michigan Wolverines football coach navbox): templates for footer navigation boxes
• Standings templates (e.g. Template:2005 Big Ten football standings): these are kind of like navboxes, but they are used in a different context and convey non-navigational content (i.e. the records), so I think these should be considered to be their own animal.

The infoboxes and "functional" templates tend to be no more specific than to a particular sport, and are, thus, relative low in number. What we have lots of are navboxes and standings templates. I've started attacking the navboxes and standings templates primarily at the conference level; see Category:American college sports templates by conference. I've got the ACC, Big East, and Big Ten cleaned up and organized, and am now working on the Big 12.

The bulk of these navboxes and standings templates are either general conference, football, or basketball themed, but there are plenty of ones for baseball, soccer and other sports as well. In order to control the chaos, keep tabs on what's out there, and provide a consistent look and feel across college sports articles, it's imperative that we develop and effectuate some standardization with respect to the naming conventions, categorization, and design/coloring of these templates.

Please take a look at the ACC, Big East, and Big Ten templates and let me know if see any problems or potential issues. There's also a lot to be done here, so I could use some help. City boy77 has been doing some work on the Horizon League and Jrcla2 has started to chew on the CAA. If anyone else is willing to pitch in and maybe knock off a conference or two, that would be great. DirtLawyer, I'm looking at you for the SEC. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've created new "meta-templates" for standings tables at {{Standings Table Start}}, {{Standings Table Entry}}, and {{Standings Table End}}. These meta-templates encode all the table formatting details, as well as how to display multiple columns, dashes between wins and losses, win percentages, etc. Now various sports standings templates merely need to transclude the meta-templates and set their sport-specific options. College football is already utilizing the new system, and I've ported over the college basketball templates in the sandbox (Template:CBB Standings Start/testcases). They should be ready to go in a moment's notice. Should we also look at the college soccer templates? DeFaultRyan 16:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings

Resolved

 – List demoted Jweiss11 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings for featured list demotion. See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings/archive1 for more information. Albacore (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings

Resolved

 – List demoted Jweiss11 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated 2005 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings for featured list demotion. See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings/archive1 for more information. Albacore (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

These demotions look warranted to me. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Another navbox for deletion discussion

Resolved

 – Navbox kept. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerned WP:CFB editors may want to comment on the navbox TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 8#Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also a new slate of college football articles up for deletion. You can view them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football. Cbl62 (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: FIU Golden Panthers → Florida International Golden Panthers

Resolved

 – Pages moved Jweiss11 (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment here: Talk:FIU Golden Panthers. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could use some comments here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:VCU Rams football season navigational box

Resolved

 – Navbox deleted Jweiss11 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:VCU Rams football season navigational box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Vacated Wins?

I couldn't find a clear answer to this in the archives. What's the policy on vacated wins, such as what UNC just announced? Does their W-L record get updated? See Special:Contributions/174.96.188.190 Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Start here. Also see this still-in-draft essay. JohnInDC (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for a clear and concise answer that doesn't involve reading a ton of back and forth. I realize this could include that there is no answer at the present time. I hope I'm not coming across as rude, as I feel this is a pretty reasonable request. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the essay I linked? JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did glance at the essay. As I said before, I think it's reasonable to request an answer without being expected to read a long drawn out explanation. It is still in draft, and it's an essay mostly by one contributor, so I have no idea if it reflects consensus.

Regardless, the nutshell explanation says "Use the official NCAA records as much as possible, with asterisks and links to explain further." Okay, so I went to the NCAA official site and am using FSU for example. Here they are for 2009 [10]. Interesting- they are still listed as wins. I suppose I was right in reverting the IP's changing all those UNC wins to losses. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to ask but as you can see, the answer is anything but straightforward. (The one contributor was me BTW.) I don't know what UNC announced and - I suppose neither of us can claim the high ground here - I don't feel like looking it up. So I point you to what is, to my knowledge, the single best summary on all of Wikipedia (complete with links to NCAA policies) on the subject, even if it is still in draft. Many articles, I think, fail to properly record vacated wins. Maybe one day. JohnInDC (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I saw the one contributor was you. About UNC - North Carolina will vacate all 16 football victories from the 2008 and 2009 seasons --CutOffTies (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

See? Even the NYT gets sloppy. Forfeit = swap the W and L. Vacate = W goes away, L stays. (Unless it's a tournament. Or a bowl. Then both go away.) These were vacations. Hm. I suppose it can be summarized easily, huh? JohnInDC (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but an answer of "this is complicated and and there's not an easy answer to this" along with the links would've been nice --CutOffTies (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is a fairly old discussion but in case someone stumbles across it, I will note that there are "WinsVacated" and "ConfWinsVacated" fields in {{Template:Infobox NCAA team season}}. In {{Template:CFB Schedule Entry}}, the w/l field can be set to "v" instead of "w" or "l" to created a vacated victory. I made the changes accordingly at 2009 North Carolina Tar Heels football team, 2008 North Carolina Tar Heels football team, 2005 USC Trojans football team, and 2004 USC Trojans football team a few days ago. OCNative (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Bowl Challenge Cup winners

Resolved

 – Category deleted Jweiss11 (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated Category:Bowl Challenge Cup winners for deletion. Please comment. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate

Resolved

 – Picture not promoted. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated a new image of Michigan Stadium as featured picture candidate. Please see: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Michigan Stadium 2011. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NAIA football conference navbox

Resolved

 – Navbox deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated Template:NAIA football conference navbox for deletion. Please comment. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Two coach cats for deletion

Resolved

 – Categories upmerged Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_25#Junior_college_football_coaches_by_school for a multi-nom CfD discussion. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Jarrett Lee

Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football by User:Hobit: "Jarrett Lee's article just got restored but is woefully out of date. I hoped someone here might have the time and inclination to fix it up. Thanks!". Jweiss11 (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the profile some, and will finish it up tomorrow with more sourcing. DMC511 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the copyvio added by DMC511. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for merger

Resolved

 – Categories merged. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a few categories for merger. Please see here. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

These could use some comments. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This one really could use some comments! Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Western Spartans football

I created a new navbox for Case Western: Template:Case Western Spartans football coach navbox. I've built it to include the history of both constituent schools and their football programs. Case Western Reserve University formed from a merger of Western Reserve University and Case Institute of Technology in 1967. Their football programs were combined in 1970. Does this form work or you think we need to break it into three separate navboxes? Similarly, does Category:Case Western Spartans football work for the whole history? I pulled the information in the navbox together from http://www.case.edu/its/archives/Seasons/seasrecs.htm, which is a great resource if you need to research Case Western sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Updating current athletes

I have recently did major upgrades on Caleb TerBush and Rob Henry (American football). Is there anyway I can get those re-rated to see how I am doing? DMC511 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DMC511, thanks for getting these articles started. They both look Start-class to me. With a little work to make the lead sections meatier, these will get close to C-class. Take a look at Denard Robinson or Mike Kafka for examples on how to develop these articles toward C/B/GA-status. There may not be enough material out there yet on TerBush or Henry to really support a well-developed article, but by season's end there should more to work with. Thanks and keep up the good work. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Jweiss11, I've been looking at Mike Kafka the most, and tried to mirror it as well as possible. Thanks for the tips and I'll keep trying to improve the Big Ten quarterback pages the best I can. DMC511 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Jweiss11, How does the Rob Henry (American football) lead section look now? DMC511 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

HOF templates

Has there been any discussion of having College Football HOF class templates like Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame navigational boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if there's been discussion, but I'd recommend against these navbox templates. The relative connectedness of inductees based on year seems rather tenuous. At least in the case of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, a given class of inductees all get up on a stage together and don the yellow jackets for a televised event. I'm not sure anything like that happens for the College Football Hall of Fame. In general, I think the proliferation of award navbox templates may need some reigning in. I think time would be much better spent fleshing out the content of these HOF bio articles. Many of them are very stubby and do not have an image. For deceased inductees, a decent picture could easily be pulled from their profile on the CFHOF website. I've done this for all deceased coaches that didn't have images, but there are plenty of HOF players still without a picture. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my recent advocacy for keeping the UFHOF navbox, I agree with Weiss. We need to start the conversation about setting some firmer standards for what awards and honors qualify for navboxes. On the Florida Gators football player pages, various editors have added a raft of navboxes for newspaper-generated pseudo-honors like All-Century team, All-Time team, etc. (I actually have a list of about a half-dozen Gators pseudo-honors navboxes that I would like to propose for deletion). These honors have no official standing, and many of them were fan-poll generated, with all of the usual "recentism" bias inherent in fan polls. Just because some publication generates an "all-time greats" list does not mean it's worthy of a Wikipedia navbox.

For individual universities, teams and conferences, I think we need to start prioritizing and limiting the number of award/honors navboxes per organization. I am willing to defer to those editors who are most knowledgeable about a particular team, university, conference or sport as to which awards are most notable to those particular organizations, but when those same editors start to create navboxes for every team, university, conference or sport award, I know that we've crossed a line into the unmanageable. We have reached the ridiculous state where many of these coach and player articles have more navboxes than actual body text content. And let's be perfectly clear: well-written substantive content is the meat and potatoes of good articles; navboxes, even well-organized ones based on some notable award or honor, are the cotton candy. If you're looking for examples of articles with lots of potential, but need work, I recommend adding some real substance to any of the existing college hall of fame articles, where substantive content is almost always sparse. If the HOF members are truly notable, then they should merit a 75 to 100-word career summary, properly sourced and footnoted. Virtually none of the existing HOF articles do this.

There are also still a lot of NFL team awards and starting position succession boxes out there that I believe need to be purged and not replaced with a navbox; apart from the obvious notability issues, do we really need a succession box for starting right tackle? Starting players at a given position can change five or more times in a single season. From a practical standpoint, that's simply unmanageable and such navboxes impart very little useful information to the reader.

On NFL player pages, we have an exploding proliferation of navboxes for minor team awards, and several navbox fanciers have been busy inventing non-existent awards like the "100 sack club" and so on. Some nameless idiot has even added the all-in-one NFL team navboxes to virtually every individual NFL coach and player article, even though the all-in-one team navboxes usually don't even include a link to the individual coaches or players (!). If you're looking for some project-approved navbox work, Tony, deleting those all-in-one NFL team navboxes from 10,000 NFL player and coach articles should be something on which virtually all of us agree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually know what the All-in-one navbox is that you are talking about. However, I have been spending time lately on some consensus All-American templates since we only had them going back to 1997. All these were players who excelled at the same time and have a connectedness for that reason. I admit College Football HOF templates would not share this trait to such a high degree although many marquee players in any class were people who got in on their first few years of eligibility and were thus contemporaries. My thoughts were more toward the older players who don't have a lot of templates and this would be one that could link them to other articles better. Yes most guys in the 21st century classes have a lot of template and this would just be compounding on that. Here is a list of guys who I will be creating consensus AA templates for Bennie Oosterbaan 1925-27, Francis Wistert 1933, Julius Franks/Albert Wistert 1942, Bob Chappuis 1947, Dick Rifenburg/Alvin Wistert 1948, Alvin Wistert 1949, Bill Yearby 1965, Jack Clancy 1966, Jarrett Irons 1996. Many of these guys could also benefit from linkages through college HOF templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the consensus All-American navboxes are a worthy effort. After the Heisman, I think being recognized as a consensus All-American is the highest accolade a college football player can receive, and because it involves multiple major selectors acting independently, it's much less prone to regional/political manipulation like the Heisman voting is. With all of the other cheesy media awards for which we've done templates, I'm surprised that the project hasn't aggressively worked to complete the AA navboxes. Last time I looked, most of the year-by-year AA articles could use a substantive upgrade, too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs) 17:11:50 (UTC)

FYI, the "all-in-one" NFL team navboxes to which I referred above the team navboxes that usually include the coaching succession, links to "list of" players pages, seasons, and everything else related to the team. See, e.g., "Template:St. Louis Rams." The use of these all-in-one team navboxes, whether for an NFL or college team, should be restricted to the team, team history and season pages, and not used on individual coach and player pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DL, yes indeed, e.g. Template:Tampa Bay Buccaneers. When I upgraded the NFL coach navboxes this summer, I purged the team navboxes from those coach bio articles. Along those lines, Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox needs some serious hemming in. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone have any comments on CHOF templates from the perspective of 20th century athletes like those I mention? It seems like most of your arguments against are less relevant to them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Those earlier athletes are indeed less prone to navbox clutter, but we need global solutions. If we created College Football HOF class templates, we'd have to created them for all classes, 1951 to present and continuing on into the future. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The AA by year navboxes make more sense to me than the HOF by year navboxes because there is stronger connectedness among the subjects. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes AA are certainly more encyclopedic, but there are so many low notability templates out there that I was thinking these were more relevant than those. Stuff like {{EA Sports NCAA Football series cover athletes}}, {{Florida-Georgia Hall of Fame}} and {{Gator Football Ring of Honor}} should not have templates if College football HOF doesn't. Above Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) said that Consensus AA is probably the second highest honor for a college football player. I think College HOF is higher than almost all other honors as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That EA Sports navbox looks like a great TfD candidate. The Gator Football Ring of Honor navbox should be treated in the class of retired number navboxes, because that's essentially what is it and have re-categorized it as such. The Florida-Georgia Hall of Fame navbox might be another good TfD candidate. It certainly needs some cleanup if its going to stay. It's not even categorized or tagged for the project. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WVUConsensusAll-Americans

Resolved

 – Template deleted Jweiss11 (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:WVUConsensusAll-Americans has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help re: polls

Resolved

 – both polls should be used where applicable Jweiss11 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have questions that involve the use of the AP Poll in the main 2011 NCAA Division I FBS football season and then the use of the Coaches' Poll in other articles such as the 2011 Oklahoma Sooners football team. Rocketmaniac ^RT 01:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jweiss, that doesn't answer Rocketmaniac's question. He doesn't understand why the AP Poll is used in NCAA season articles, but the Coaches' Poll is used in individual team articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Eagles247, I answered Rocketmaniac's question separately. I was unaware of the standard you mention. It's seems very silly to use one polls in one place and the other in another. The two polls should be used in tandem in all tables and lists. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that you two have been discussing. I agree, though, that both polls should be used for articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo ID help

Resolved

 – Player ID'd. Thanks, DMC511. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking to upload a couple of freely licensed photos from Flickr to Commons from the Southern Cal vs Arizona State game earlier, and I need help identifying the player. Who is the Arizona State defender who is looking menacingly at Matt Barkley in [11] and [12]? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is Vontaze Burfict, a linebacker. See the attached link. [13] --DMC511 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast. Vontaze Burfict now has an image. --Mosmof (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Pretty badass. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Program navboxes

Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#College basketball program navboxes - standards about standardizing navboxes for college sports programs. I've expanded the discussion there to include football. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Division I College Football Consensus All-Americans footer

Having a navbox provide links to other navboxes (a la those employing Template:NCAA Division I College Football Consensus All-Americans footer) strikes me as very poor design. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

AP and Coaches Polls

After consultation with me, Rocketmaniac has added Coaches Poll rankings to a number of the 2011 team season articles that already had AP rankings listed. Other editors have reverted those edits with claims such as "nothing says both polls need to be listed, leave it as the creator of the page had it." The AP and Coaches Polls are on equal footing. Neither is significantly more important than other and a number of our infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox NCAA team season, Template:Infobox NCAA football yearly game) encode this parity. There is no rationale for deleting these Coaches Poll rankings as they constitute reasonable comprehensiveness. Furthermore, locking in on an article creator's will (or any one editor's) is antithetical to collaborative revision and improvement, a central principle of Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't we come to a consensus and limit it to one poll within the schedule table? Because in the interest of completeness, we could literally list 4 polls. Listing more than one is confusing. There is a reason that most media outlets list one poll at a time when they list matchups. The rankings movement table exists to give the completeness of the polls. —Ute in DC (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Harris interactive Poll and the BCS rankings can be killed from schedule table conversation. Neither of those, nor anything else, has the historical significance of the AP and Coaches. There's no way to pick one from those two that wouldn't be largely arbitrary. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's entirely your opinion. The AP Poll precedes the Coaches' Poll by 14 years. It's an arbitrary decision to include 2, but not 4. Most reliable sources list only 1 poll at a time. That should be our policy too. —Ute in DC (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If what's I've stated is opinion, then picking one of the two major polls would be an even heavier opinion. That the AP Poll predates the Coaches' Poll by 14 years pales in significance to the fact that both have existed side by side for 61 years. ESPN clearly puts them on equal footing in their structural listings here [14] and [15] (see "2011 POLLS AND RANKINGS" box on right side) and in ESPN College Football Encyclopedia: The Complete History of the Game. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The first ESPN link is NOT limited to 2 polls. It lists not only the AP and Coaches', but also the BCS and the ESPN.com Power's Ranking. As soon as the BCS poll is released, it will precede EVERY poll in their listing. See [16]. Furthermore, that ESPN listing is analogous to the Wikipedia yearly rankings pages. (See 2011 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings that list every team ranked.) The second link you gave lists LSU with one rank only in the actual schedule table. – i.e. the wikipedia analogue of the schedule table. The ranking on the right side, which you refer to, is analogous to our infobox, where we already list both the Coaches' and AP Polls. In other words, a reliable source, ESPN thinks that when a schedule is listed, they should list only 1 poll. If a curious reader wants to know LSU's rank in other polls, that information is listed to the side. —Ute in DC (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In no way should two polls be used. If the BCS had a poll every week then we wouldn't even be discussing this, we would just use that every week. Since it dosen't come out until week 8, its my opinion that the Coaches poll should be used because it is actually used in the BCS. The AP has zero influence on the National Championship and is just put together by a bunch of sports writers with SEC bias and who want to control everything and would pick their own NC game if they could. If someone wants to list AP, then thats fine, I'm against it but if it starts with that then it should stay as that. To say they are on equal footing and that neither is significantly more important than the other is completly wrong. The Coaches being 1/3 of the BCS makes it vastly more significant. So either or, only one should be used. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fellas, let's settle down. BSU, there is no Eastern/SEC conspiracy behind the AP Poll. Four years ago, we were having an argument about whether the two major polls had a pro-Big Ten bias (remember the Ohio State-Michigan rematch for the BCS championship?), and before that whether it overrated USC. These controversies are cyclical because they involve human opinions, not objective criteria, and if there is a bias, it is a "flavor of the month" bias inherent in all polls. That having been said, the AP Poll is the granddaddy of CFB polls (dating to the 1936 season), and has the longest history and the widest base of input of any of the polls. Together with the Coaches Poll, it has been one of the two major selectors for determining a "consensus" national championships for over 60 years. Notwithstanding that the AP Poll no longer participates in determining the BCS rankings, a BCS championship without an AP Poll championship is going to be controversial. Bottom line: the AP Poll is still very relevant and widely used. The Harris Poll has very little following outside the BCS rankings, and virtually all other CFB polls and ratings services have very narrow followings.

That having been said, gentlemen, adding a second set of poll rankings to our current CFB season records table template will make the already unwieldy format of the season records tables even more so. There are already too many graphic options built into the table templates, with too many extraneous bits and pieces of random information, that making it difficult to quickly discern the most important information (i.e. opponents and scores) at a glance. IMHO, putting both major polls side by side just makes both poll rankings that much harder to read----at least as I've seen it presented so far. It's not just the subject team's poll rankings, either; if you do it for the subject team, you have to include both polls for the opponents also, making the table even bigger and harder to read at a glance. And, yes, if we're going to include both major polls in the season records tables, then we have to consider adding the BCS rankings from the eighth week forward, too. Until someone comes up with a simple way to present both polls (or both plus the BCS rankings), I'm opposed to further junking up these tables. A lot of this information can be put into the individual game summaries, and the season summary infobox already includes both major polls. I mean do we really need to include the game times in the season records table for any season other than the current one? Seriously? There also should be a better way of including links to the rivalry game articles. As typically done now, the inclusion of the rivalry links makes the tables too large, causes internal line wrapping and irregular internal spacing, and the resulting tables are neither clean nor orderly, and they look like crap.

Having spoken my peace, I suggest we review the existing season records table format and the impact of optional practices before we further expand the tables with the inclusion of two or more poll rankings. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if the AP Poll should not be used, then why does ESPN.com use it? Look at the schedule for this upcoming weekend. http://espn.go.com/college-football/schedule It lists #1 LSU at TN and #3 OK at KS. And "IF" only the coaches poll should be used, then why is the main 2011 NCAA Division I FBS football season article only list the AP Poll? And then there are team season articles like the 2011 Oregon Ducks that list only AP Poll? (or course this is after my edit to this article adding the coaches poll was reverted!!! And I dont think Oregon is in the SEC) Rocketmaniac ^RT 19:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rocket, my argument is not against either the AP Poll or the Coaches Poll. The polls are the two major selectors that have determined a consensus national championship since 1950; both have longer history and greater validity than any other CFB polls or ratings services. My argument is against cramming both of them into the already cluttered space of the existing season records table template. In the existing table format, the table editor needs to pick one. To the extent they can both be used without further cluttering the season records table, I'm all in favor. The coaches records table and the team season summary infobox use both polls, but do so in a clean, uncluttered format (both have separate lines or columns for the two polls). That's good. What I'm objecting to is cramming another datum into the season records table that already includes a chaotic raft of trivia. Cramming the rankings in the same column together (e.g. "#12/#14"), or both in the same column as the opposing team ("#17/#18 Western Kentucky Hilltoppers"), just makes the pre-existing table data harder to read. The various data need to be properly spaced, and probably separated into separate columns. We also seriously need to revisit what individual data we should include in the tables. Do we really need the game times for past seasons? Do we really need the attendance stats? Do we really need to code an "at" for away games when the home games are all played in the same location? Does "vs." really imply a neutral site game? What is the best way to include links to the rivalry game articles? Would the rivalry game links be better presented in a "See also" section? Are some of these data better included in the individual game summaries and omitted from the main season records table? IMHO, the guiding thought process in completing these templates should be easy legibility and quick readability for the major data: date, teams, final score, game site. Everything else should be secondary to making sure that the major data can easily be discerned by the reader at a glance. Available space should also be a consideration; internal line wrapping should not occur on standard-size and larger monitors. I've recently noticed that some of the CBB season records tables now include cumulative season win-loss records after every game. At this rate, it's just a matter of time until someone tries to cram weather conditions and game MVPs into these tables, too. At some point, adding more and more secondary game data crosses the line into overkill and actually detracts from the presentation of the most important game data. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DL, I hear you on the concern about clutter. However, I think the time, TV, attendance, and both major polls are useful and historically relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the schedule tables. I agree with your take about adding more info to the table, but cumulative record might actually be helpful. Weather, MVPs, stats, definitely no. Take at look at the table on 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. That one is pretty clean without wrapping, isn't it? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I favor making the boxes a bit cleaner. My two cents: (1) Date, opponent and result are the most essential columns. (2) Rankings are the next most helpful IMO. I don't feel strongly as to whether we use 1, 2, or 3 ratings. But I agree that BCS in later weeks is as important (or more important) than AP or Coaches poll. If we are really striving for "completeness," BCS would be needed. On balance, probably best to limit the table to one ranking to avoid clutter (with more detailed information in games summaries, if desired), (3) I agree with Dirtlawyer that game times aren't needed except for the current season. Whether a 1978 game was played at 1:00 p.mm. or 4:00 p.m. is not the sort of essential information that's needed in the table. (4) I don't think the "TV" column is needed either. Same rationale as game time. It might be helpful for current season, but whether a 2006 game was broadcast on ABC, CBS, Prime Ticket, ESPN, ESPN2, FoxSportsWest, on some local TV station, or not at all is not essential game information. (5) The "Site" column is superfluous in most cases, since the "at" designation tells us if it was a home or away game. The one exception is where the game is at a neutral site, which is pretty rare for regular season games, and we could deal with that through footnoting. Summary. I favor getting rid of "Time" and "TV" columns for past seasons. I'd also be open to getting rid of the "Site" column. We could then make room for some more essential information (ideas?) or just have a more streamlined table. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

JW, generally, the 1997 Wolverines season records table is better prepared than most. To address the most topical issue first, if you're going to include both major polls in the table, you really need to create a separate column for the opponents' rankings to improve the one-glance readability of the opponents' team names. Once the template is modified to include a separate column for the opponents' rankings, both the Wolverines' and their opponents' poll rankings need to be spaced so they can be clearly and easily read. I also question whether the number/pound sign (#) is necessary. I note that we use the number sign in the season summary infobox, but not in the coaching records tables. We should be consistent. I also note that the use of the number sign in main body text is contrary to the MOS, which suggests that rankings should be presented as "No. 1," not as #1, in text.

I would also recommend losing the "at" and "vs." designators for away and neutral site games. They are a waste of space, impart no real information, and make the opponents' names significantly harder to read at a glance (especially so when combined with the opponents' poll rankings in the same column). If the game wasn't played in Ann Arbor, it clearly was an away game or bowl game because the Wolverines don't play any regular-season neutral-site games.

In order to save space and reduce table size, I would definitely abbreviate "ESPN Regional" as "ESPN-R" or "ESPN-Reg." The TV column is twice as wide as it needs to be. Likewise, I would also consider moving game times, attendance and maybe even TV coverage to the individual game summaries. To my way of thinking, not every game datum needs to be included in the season records table, but reasonable people can differ on these points.

I also note that the 1997 Wolverines records table does not include the rivalry game article links. Personally, I think the rivalry game article links work better as "see also" section links anyway. This also makes for a smaller, more manageable records table that does not have internal line-wrapping and spacing issues on most computer monitors.

These are my thoughts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

To address some of these issues proposed here, I've tinkered with the table. Check it out at: User:Jweiss11/CFB schedule table. As for the rivalry links, I agree that they are clunky in the schedule tables. They should be integrated into the season or game summaries in the body of the article where appropriate. But, I do think that bowl and playoff games should be noted in the schedule table. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That was fast, JW. Clearly you want to include both polls. LOL

My price for voting in favor of inclusion of both polls is the following: (1) lose the "Loc" column with the ambiguous H, W and N codes; this is completely unnecessary as long we include the stadium name and city site of the games; (2) we need to add spaces between the individual poll rankings and the slash (/) separator to improve readability; (3) abbreviate "ESPN-Regional" as either "ESPN-R" or "ESPN-Reg"; we are wasting a lot of unnecessary space in this column; and (4) can we move the asterisk (*) code for non-conference games from the date column to the opponent column where it makes more sense? I still think we should lose the game times for all but the current seasons, but I'm willing to defer to the editors who work on the individual team pages. Cbl will probably have some further comments on that topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

JW, The proposed new format is overloaded IMO. Too many columns and too much information. The goal was to simplify, and this is even more complicated than before (going from 8 to 10 columns). Try it without the "Time" column for starters (with an exception for the current season). (As noted above, I also favor getting rid of the "TV" column with a possible exception for the current season.) And there remains a legitimate beef that you can't include AP and Coaches polls but omit BCS in later weeks, which is the "official" ranking. Finally, if we keep the "Loc" column, we can get rid of the "Site" column. Certainly no need for both. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cbl, I haven't added any information. I've just pulled out what was one column into three—location (H/A/N), opponent, and opponent rank—to address complaints about cluttering. That being said, I'm not a big fan of the "Loc" column as I have it, but it would be nice to have an explicit identifier of some sort to denote home/away/neutral games. Even with such an identifier, there is still great value in the site column. It not always obvious where a game was played in the case of neutral site games or for teams that host games in multiples stadiums like Arkansas to date or Alabama historically at Legion Field. As you go back historically, it also very handy to have the exact site, often defunct, listed. I find this column to be indispensable. DL, I'm pretty sure that slashes are supposed to be spaced like endashes. So if the constituent elements on either side of the slash don't include spaces themselves, you shouldn't have spaces around the slash. Abbreviations for things like "ESPN Regional" are find by me. Those, of course, can and will have to be done locally. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

JW, actually the MOS style guidelines applicable to slashes as separators are much more flexible than those applicable to dashes (see MOS:SLASH). Spaced slashes are permissible in a variety of circumstances. Again, readability at a glance should be our guiding principal. The double rankings separated by an unspaced slash look like a fraction, and not two separate data with a separator, and they are harder to decipher at a glance.

As for the "Loc" column and the H/A/N designators, they continue to be redundant. The "at" designator is also unnecessary; away games played at the opposing team's home stadium are obvious, just as home games played in the subject team's home stadium are obvious. The "vs." designator is ambiguous and doesn't even clearly convey its intended meaning as a neutral site designator. A further flaw in the present "system" is that we don't have a way to distinguish between off-campus neutral site games and off-campus home games, but I'm not sure that's really necessary anyway----as long as we continue to include the stadium/location data. . . .

From the perspective of an SEC guy, I agree with you that we should keep the stadium/location data. Prior to the 1950s-1960s expansions of the on-campus stadiums, Alabama, Auburn, Florida and Georgia all played numerous home games at off-campus sites. Alabama played games in Birmingham, Montgomery and Mobile. Auburn played games in Birmingham, Columbus, Montgomery and Mobile. Florida played games in Jacksonville, Miami and Tampa. Georgia played games in Columbus, Jacksonville, Macon and Savannah. Other SEC teams played off-campus games, but not with the same degree of regularity. Once the on-campus stadiums were at least as big as the off-campus ones, the financial incentives to move the games faded, but that's still a big part of these series histories. That's also true for other schools around the country.

I also vote to lose the game times for all seasons but the current one. Even in your 1997 Wolverines example, over half of the times are missing anyway, and the further you go back in time, the harder it becomes to locate such data. To the extent the kickoff time is relevant, stick the times in the individual game summaries; in the more recent seasons the game summary infobox is the perfect place for this, as well as weather conditions, etc. The season records tables are not intended to be some sort of super box scores. Let's keep the focus on the core data: game date, teams, game site, score. We're talking about expanding that to include two major poll rankings from 1950 forward, and possibly the BCS rankings from 1998 forward. We need to prioritize the core data, and not include everything when everything becomes a distraction.

Let's get some input from other editors. I'm sure they have opinions, too. How about it, guys? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's clean up the date column. I don't see any need for there to be a year listed in that column, and I agree with the idea of moving the asterisks and such for conference/homecoming games to the opponent column. I gave it a try at User:Jweiss11/CFB schedule table and think it's a minor improvement, feel free to revert if you disagree. I still think that while we're at it we should revisit the practice of 'asterisking' the non-conference games instead of the conference games. DeFaultRyan 19:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here are my $.02... Personally as the template is currently presented does a good job in presenting relevant information for each game. It is alot of information but not necessarily too much, especially in "stub" articles. Regarding rankings in the schedule template, I see no reason why multiples should be presented there. I feel this since most articles now have a "Rankings" section that gives the complete rankings for an individual team for the entire season. If someone is curious about rankings, they can inquire there. Maybe they should be removed altogether?

The bigger question in my opinion is how the template should be utilized in well-sourced season articles as compared to those lacking significant expansion. For example, in the 2010 Alabama Crimson Tide football team article, the time, rankings, game/rivalry names, television and attendance can be removed altogether from the schedule template as all of that information can be found in the individual game recaps. However in articles similar to ones like the 2003 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, game recaps have not yet been completed. Thus the additional information should be presented in the schedule template as there is nowhere else for it at present. I know there is not a simple answer to this, and honestly there probably will not be given the immense scope and participation in this project. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like a switch to marking non-conference games with an asterisk, instead of vice-versa. So as long as we are overhauling the whole template, that's something that should be included. —Ute in DC (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Patriarca12, you bring up a good point about the table providing information where it is lacking elsewhere in stub articles. But I don't see the value in paring down the table for more developed articles. It still provides a good summary for those. Ute in DC, I remember this issue about the asterisk for conference games came up a while back, maybe last year. If we make this change there are two options. 1) Just tweak the templates to move the asterisk to conference games and change the footer notation accordingly. But then we'd have to live with counterintuitive data entry. We'd be noting non-conference games in the code, then marking conference games in the display. 2) The other option is to tweak the templates including a field name change, and then run a bot to scrub all instances (over 2000 articles) of the template and invert the field values. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

If nothing else, there does appear to be a consensus that only one ranking should be included in the schedule table. Unless I've misunderstood anyone, this view is supported in comments above by Ute in DC, Bsuorangecrush, Dirtlawyer1, Patriarca12, and myself. That said, shouldn't we have some norm as to whether that "one" ranking should be AP, Coaches, or BCS? Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, such consensus to have only one ranking is not very meaningful unless it also prescribes which of the rankings is the one. I don't see how it could be the BCS given that its only goes back to 1998 and doesn't start until a few weeks into the season. I still thinking picking between the Coaches' and the AP is silly. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with having only one ranking listed. I understand that some articles have become (or will become) very cluttered. I too cant see how the BCS could be used as its only a measure of the 2nd half of the season. I just would like to see "ALL" articles (the main season article and each of the individual team season articles) have one common ranking. Now, what is confusing for me is to hear on TV or see online with websites like ESPN.com that for example LSU is number 1, and then see on wiki that Oklahoma is number 1. I mean if you look at the 2011 Oklahoma Sooners football team article you will see in the schedule table that Oklahoma is number 1, but if you look in the Big 12 Standings table, they are number 3, and this is in one single article!!!!! Totally Wrong!!!!!!! Something has to change. Rocketmaniac ^RT 03:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But question remain is Oklahoma #1 or #3? They are both. The AP and Coaches' Polls are two peas in pod and of equal stature. To present one and not the other is arbitrary and selective and leads to inconsistency. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oklahoma is #1 in the Coaches Poll and #3 in the AP Poll. ESPN refers to No. 3 Oklahoma. Sports Illustrated also refers to No. 3 Oklahoma. Fox Sports has Oklahoma as #3. Rivals.com has Oklahoma as #3. It seems the major sports media use the AP Poll. OCNative (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with OCNative. This is assuming that we are finally talking about just putting ONLY one ranking???? And the idea of only have one ranking is based on above conversation about it being too crowded with 2 or more rankings. I think we should follow the major sports media. Rocketmaniac ^RT 21:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AP is OK with me, too. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still very against the AP being used. Yes, most media outlets use the AP until the BCS comes out, but most use the AP because most media outlets have an AP voter who works for them. Of course they are going to use the poll their own employees are voting for as opposed to what the coaches say. To me ESPN is very hypocritical, they use the AP, which has absolutly NOTHING to do with the BCS, until the BCS poll comes out and since they broadcast the BCS games they then abandon the AP rankings and use the BCS. Seems to me that we all agree that if the BCS had a poll every week then we would use that. Since they dont have a poll till we 8, we should use the poll that is actually used as 1/3 of the BCS and is out every week. I know I'm probably going to be ripped apart for thinking this because I always am, but I think its just common sense to use the coaches over the AP.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bsuorangecrush, you make some very good points here about the significance of the Coaches' Poll. They contribute to the reasons why we should use both polls. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Before we all agree that this conversation is officially over, I'd like to revisit the changes that were proposed to the schedule tables. Please see User:Jweiss11/CFB schedule table again. This now incorporates a number of the suggestion made above and still services multiple rankings. Thoughts now? Jweiss11 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You say this incorporates "a number of suggestions made above," but the only thing changed is that you added a space before/after the brackets. I remain opposed. There is a general consensus that we should make the Schedule tables simpler, not more complicated. Rather than adding columns (your column expands the table from 8 to 10), we should be streamlining the table. The core information is date, opponent, and result. Having too many columns distracts from the core information. More detailed information can, of course, be included in individual game summaries or ranking progression tables. Specific comments as follows:

• As noted above, there's a consensus (5 to 1) that only one ranking should be included in the Schedule table. Including multiple rankings (and it would have to be three in weeks after the BCS comes out) is unwieldy and difficult to read.
• There is no need for both a "Loc" and "Site" column. It should be one or the other. Since most seem to feel the stadium is important information, the "Loc" should be abandoned.
• There also appeared to be a consensus that game times aren't needed except for the current season.
• I favored getting rid of the TV column for older seasons, but there didn't appear to be a consensus on that point. Cbl62 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This indeed incorporates a number of other changes, including the splitting out of opponent ranks from the opponent columns. The table now looks pretty clean and readable to me. There is indeed a need for both a home/away/neutral column and a site column, since there is not a absolute one-to-one relationship between home/away/neutral and site, e.g. Arkansas and many other historical examples that played home games at multiple sites. Even in the case of all home games played at one site, it remains unclear without the H/A/N designation which games where away and which were neutral site. There also hasn't been a good argument made for why we should service time and TV for only the current season. Is Wikipedia to service as a TV guide? Either this data is notable for all seasons or none. Temporarily posting current TV listings is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I also remain unmoved by the argument as to why inclusion of the AP Poll alone does not necessitate the inclusion of the BCS rankings, but when you add in the Coaches' Poll, you must also present the BCS rankings. Why? For the purposes of recognizing national championships since 1950, we put the two polls on equal footing. And for those same purposes, the BCS and the Coaches contractually collapse into one another. Finally, since this discussion has continued to evolve and has entailed structural changes to core templates, I ask that people who have weighed in earlier reaffirm or amplify their position, before we take a formal reading of consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the latest and great version of the proposed new schedule table: User:Jweiss11/CFB schedule table. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Whats they point of the H/A/N column? I think the way it is done already by just putting at and vs next the the opponents name when its not a home game is fine. Its one less collumn and gets accross the exact same information. Same with the opponent rank, I don't see why its needs its own collumn. I guess I'm being nitpicky but I really don't see whats wrong with the one we already use other then the poll situation on which one to use.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bsuorangecrush, there were complaints about the @ and "vs." designations being ambiguous and cluttering. The H/A/N column break them out in their own column. I feel something of this sort is still needed because the site column alone does not explicitly tell you whether the game was home, away, or neutral. The opponent rank column was also created in an effort to combat cluttering, especially in the case where multiple polls are used. The question of "which" poll to use seems unresolvable, which is part of why I advocate using both polls. What you would do if you were forced to choose between your heart and your lungs? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am very late to this, but as I understand it there is not a consensus on this matter. Why is User:Cbl62 going ahead and editing articles such as Notre Dame Fighting Irish Football team to reflect just one poll? Also, at the very least it seems that Pre-BCS, both polls should be included, as both polls signify the champion. Some examples of this are the 1973, 1990 and 1997 seasons. I prefer both polls... it seems silly to not be comprehensive on an internet encyclopedia. Tedmoseby (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Tedmoseby, thanks for chiming in. Cbl62 thought we had a consensus, but I think it's clear now that we still don't. Again, I'd like for those who have already commented to reaffirm or modulate their position especially in light on the proposed, new schedule table I've mocked up to address concerns about cluttering: User:Jweiss11/CFB schedule table. Thanks.

There was a consensus of 5 to 1 on the narrow issue of using only one poll ranking in the Schedule box. We can still be comprehensive by including the more comprehensive information (AP, Coaches, BCS and Harris) in the rankings progression box. The issue on which a consensus was reached is limiting the data to be included in the Schedule table. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be a consensus on using only poll ranking, but which one is STILL WIDE open. I have to say Ive become so frustrated w this debate than Ive not been here too much. Most all of the college football articles are NOT consistent at all, and Im not just talking about this ranking debate. I wish more Admins would join in so we can come to a decision and move forward. Rocketmaniac ^RT 15:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rocket, I suggest that you take a look-see at he bottom of this talk page for the voting section regarding these issues. The consensus on these issues is very much in flux, based on how the multiple polls and other information are presented, and your opinion could well determine the consensus. Please join us below, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus A-A templates

Colors

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs) has complained to me twice about the red color of the majority of the templates at Category:American college football consensus All-American navigational boxes. I would prefer any color other than the default, while he prefers the default since there is no reason for any other color. Can we discuss this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I saw the back-and-forth between you and JW, and I thought about red, white and blue for the All-American navboxes. That having been said, in the absence of a WP:CFB consensus color scheme or applicable official colors, we default to the, er, default colors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Red with blue borders and white letters? Would you support that scheme?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I would support that, but I'm just one editor among several dozen who work on the CBB and CFB projects, and I'm really not wedded to a color scheme for the AA navboxes one or the other. Let's see if we can't get the other folks to weigh in. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The red, white, and blue is better than the red and white, I suppose, but the rationale (colors of the American flag) is still a bit tenuous. If we had some official logo, website or publication that used these colors in connection with All-American selections, we'd have a good rationale, but I don't believe we have that.. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see justifying the red colors unless there's a logo. I don't object to there being colors on the navboxes, but if they're going to be arbitrary then they should at least be more neutral than fire engine red. The men's basketball consensus navboxes are a light blue; admittedly I don't know why that color scheme was selected, but at least they're identifiable on their own and don't command the reader's attention away from everything else at the bottom. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the established color for the college basketball navboxes? It's neutral and those have been out there for years. Rikster2 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use some different colors. Guys were were both consensus in basketball and football (Bennie Oosterbaan and Vic Hanson come to mind) will look confusing. I actually thought hoops was using default. Glad we have precedent for not going with default. I don't know how light blue was chosen for hoop. What about a pigskin color for football?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's no different from situations where the same guy coached baseball, basketball and football at the same school - those are all the same colors too. One of the knocks on us (WP:CFB & WP:CBB) is that some find all the different navbox colors distracting or ugly. While I see a purpose in differentiating school-specific navboxes using school colors I don't think it's as important for other navboxes. The NFL, NBA etc. use the same color for league award navboxes, why not college sports too? Rikster2 (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Rikster, I'm increasingly coming around to your way of thinking. BTW, what the hell is up with the peach background and default blue text for NBA, WNBA and NFL draft navboxes? Who picked those colors? LOL All kidding aside, I think we need to start looking at default blue for most of the awards and honors. The team-specific succession boxes should use team colors; everything else we should be using default blue in the absence of specific consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a minor point to mention, but WP:NBA came to a consensus a few months back on removing colors from their draft templates. All of them now use default blue, which I think looks pretty good. I may go in and remove the peach from the WNBA templates since they fall under the auspices of WP:NBA. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if there's isn't a color scheme that can be meaningfully tied to an entity's logo or brand colors, a navbox should be set to default colors. In the case of NBA Draft and other NBA templates, the red and blue of NBA Logo would be appropriate. The light blue and pink in Template:National Basketball Association are not very good. I've done a lot of work on college sports navboxes of late. I've added brand colors for conference navboxes (e.g. Template:Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference navbox, NCAA-wide navboxes (e.g. Template:NCAA Division II navbox), and bowl games navboxes (e.g. Template:Sun Bowl navbox. I think these look pretty good and they indeed have meaningful color schemes. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think having red and blue draft templates for the NBA would be distracting. The neutral blue is a much more understated but appropriate way to handle, IMO. And for what it's worth, I just opened up a discussion at WT:NFL about their choice of peach for draft templates. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Template:NFL has got some peach in it too. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Template-to-template links

Not a comment about color, but content. I think the consensus AA templates are fine, but I don't like the addition yesterday of links to every other template within each template. It makes the template way more lengthy and complicated. I liked the more streamlined format from before yesterday. Also, something doesn't seem right about templates linking to other templates. If there are to be links to every other year, the link should be to the AA "article" for each year and not to the other "templates." Cbl62 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would a consensus AA template link to the general AA article. It should link to a consensus AA page of some sort if anywhere, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that none of the other similar templates for annual award groups include links to every other year's template, and doing so creates unneeded clutter IMO. See examples below. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Compare

with

• I added this because when I am using these templates for their encyclopedic content, I often want to look at a few years in this at a glance format. Since there are so many years it is hard to make it look any less cumbersome. I can remove it if there is consensus to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• I adapted this from the NFL draft templates. See:

Cbl, I agree with you thoughts about the template-to-template links, as I mentioned last night on this talk page a couple sections up. Tony, navboxes are supposed to provide links to articles, not to other navboxes. I see that some other sports projects have used this technique, but it is poor design. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't fight this one too hard because with so many years, it is hard to make this look inconspicuous. I will remove the footer tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it's a good idea to link to the other templates. For awards it becomes too convoluted, plus they're annual selections and imagine how much bigger these templates will get in 5, 10 or 15 years (assuming Wikipedia still exists...God I hope so). Jrcla2 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Football Consensus AA source

I made a bunch of Consensus AA templates using Sports-reference.com. Then, I discovered this NCAA source. I have checked a half dozen seasons without finding any differences. Is Sports-reference identical and thus official?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The NCAA guide is "official," although there are some mistakes even there. Don't know for sure if sports-reference.com is identical. Cbl62 (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus AA season articles

Does {{College Football Awards}} belong on individual season article such as 2001 College Football All-America Team?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No. As a general rule, if the article isn't in the navbox, don't put the navbox on it. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New York Times coverage of Division III football

FYI, The New York Times ran a feature article about Division III football on the front page of Saturday's sports section: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/sports/ncaafootball/heidelberg-football-works-toward-upset-that-never-comes.html. Thought people here would be interested to read it and encouraged by its prominence. A little piece of fodder, perhaps, when small-time college football comes under questions of notability here on Wikpedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

**NBA head coaching navboxes discussion finally started

Hi all – The next phase in head coaching navbox standardization has come to fruition. Please visit this discussion at WT:NBA if you have any opinions on the issue. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Quicky categorization task

Resolved

 – categorization task completed Jweiss11 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, so the vast majority of the pages in Category:Future-Class college football articles should be in Category:Current-Class college football articles. It's really easy to do: all that needs to be done is change the word "future" to "current" on the pages in the category.

The Future-Class articles are mostly team pages, a few conference pages, a few conference championship games, and some bowl games. The team pages and conference pages need to be switched to Current-Class while the CCGs and bowl games should remain Future-Class. There were a little under 300 pages when I started switching, and there's now 239 pages. I've taken care of the Pac-12, Big 12, Big Ten, and SEC conference pages and team pages. I've also taken care of the FBS independent pages and the NCAA-wide pages.

If someone wants to start in on the ACC, Big East, non-AQ, and FCS conference and team pages, that would go a long way. Even if each person reading this did one page, it would go a long way to finishing this. OCNative (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I tackled the Mountain West, WAC, and Big Sky conferences. Down to 212. Obviously, we can skip the bowl games and championship games, as they haven't happened yet. :) DeFaultRyan 04:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I knocked out a few as well. Down to an even 200. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

All done. I got bored. SCS100 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

SCS, nice job banging that out. If you're still bored, I've got more sports-related tagging projects for you. ;) Jweiss11 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Great work, SCS100! However, I have two questions for you: 1) Are you secretly a bot? 2) Do you want to update all of these pages again in January? OCNative (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, not a bot. Just a bored college student on fall break. I can try and get most of these again in January if I remember at that time. SCS100 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DeFaultRyan and Jweiss11 for stepping up, as well. (I figured it'd be more a bunch of edits like yours and mine than the SCS100 miracle.) OCNative (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

College football team navboxes

I've brought up the topic of standardizing college football team navboxes here before, and there is also a similar, recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. I've gone ahead and pushed live a new format for the Michigan Wolverines: Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox. Some key points:

• I believe that navboxes should present a closed loop of navigation, i.e. if a navbox brings you to a given article, that navbox should appear on that destination article as well, perhaps, with some exceptions for links that appear in a navbox title that provide wider context. The general feeling is that team navboxes should not appear on player and coach biography articles to control clutter. So, conversely, given my what I've said about closed-loop navigation, coaches and players should not explicitly appear in the team navboxes. For Michigan, there are three other more specific navboxes that are appropriate for placement on biography articles: Template:Michigan Wolverines football coach navbox, Template:Michigan Wolverines quarterback navbox, Template:Michigan Wolverines football retired number navbox. On the team navbox, in lieu of direct links to players and coaches, we having links to lists that summarize them.

• I've integrated the full set of season links into main team navbox. In many cases, for given programs we have separate, dedicated navboxes just for seasons. But for simplicity and comprehensiveness, I think it makes sense to integrate these into the main team navbox. This would condense the members of Category:American college football team navigational boxes with those of Category:American college football team season navigational boxes, which I think would be a good thing.

• Many navboxes present separate sections for nat'l and conference championship seasons. I don't think this is a good idea. A navbox should simply present navigation options with the simplest amount of adornment and clarification. Sections for championship seasons when we already have a full list of season is redundant and strikes me as banner raising. The articles and a list of seasons should make it clear how the team did each season. We don't need to overload the navbox with redundancy or adornment for "special" seasons.

• I've left direct links to Michigan bowl games off since they already have their own dedicated navbox (Template:Michigan Wolverines bowl game navbox), as we have for other programs as well. I have included here in the team navbox a link to List of Michigan Wolverines bowl games (not yet created), but we do have these lists for some programs, including the FL-status List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games. Should we think about maybe integrating the bowl navboxes into the main team navboxes? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That being said, thoughts, complaints, etc? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• National championships need to be separately laid out in the team navbox. Nothing more important to a football team's history than national championships.
• Having a section listing the key current personnel (head coach, def. coord., and off. coordinator) was helpful. Prefer to have that restored.
• The "Games" section has been the subject of rancorous debate between me and JW. Individual games are not significant enough IMO to be featured in an overall team template. There's already a section with links to the rivalries, so there's absolutely no need to link to the 2001 MSU game or the 2006 OSU game.
• "Pageantry" is an ill-defined concept. In other templates, there are sections for "Lore" and "Culture." These are all ill-defined terms, but I do agree that there needs to be some such section to capture the sorts of things like the "winged helmet" that are such an important part of the college football experience. Not sure "pageantry" is the right word. I think I'd prefer "Culture" which is the word used for this in the Florida Gators template.
• Dirtlawyer raised the issue of including the coaching succession, since coaches tend to define the eras in a college football program. I agree with DL that a list of the team's head coaches should be included in the template. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also, we should remain cognizant of the fact that one size doesn't fit all. The key elements for Michigan football (with 130 years of history) may not be the same as for Boise State. Cbl62 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cbl, good point about "pageantry". That may not be the best term. "Culture and lore" may be better. What I'm intending here is a group for fight songs, mascots, uniforms/helmets, and cultural/fan elements like Aggie Bonfire, 12th man (football), or Cameron Crazies. What about articles like History of Ohio State Buckeyes football? Should those go here too? Is there anything else I'm missing that falls into this bucket?

I have mixed feeling about the current staff and the explicit line of head coaches. I see the value on one hand, but their inclusion will break the closed-loop principle I've laid out above.

For the nat'l champs, what would you like to see? Those seasons repeated in their own section? Or notation within the seasons grouping?

As for the games, we've decided that those articles are important enough to warrant their own articles. As such, I think they belong in the navbox, unless we can consider them to be sub-articles of seasons or rivalries, but I'm not sure that's appropriate. I realize that the 2001 Michigan State game may not seem as important as Michigan national titles, but when it comes to navboxes, the question we should be asking is not "What are the most important elements of this subject?" (that is indeed the right question for writing the lead section of Michigan Wolverines football) but, rather, "What articles do we have on this subject?" The latter question can be answered more objectively.

As for the one-size fits all question, I really do think we can come up with a format that works for every program. To take your example of Boise State, don't we (or shouldn't we, if some key ones are missing) have the same types of articles about Boise State football as we do about Michigan football? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about having the template cover the broad big picture, the most important elements of the program, rather than having a closed loop. Specific replies as follows:

• The item I feel most strongly about is "Games." Individual games are not broad big picture material that belong in an overall team template. The fact that "we've decided that those articles are important enough to warrant their own articles" misses the point. There are lots of Michigan football articles that aren't linked (directly or indirectly) in the template (e.g., notable assistant coaches, athletic directors, and founding fathers like Don Canham, Albert Pattengill, Ralph W. Aigler, Charles A. Baird, and Keene Fitzpatrick). The overall template need not include every topic in the Michigan football universe. It should be limited to the big picture, and including direct links to the 2001 MSU game or 2006 OSU game would be the opposite of big picture.
• As for national championships, I think it would be best to have a separate group listing the national championships. I'm open, however, to the idea of somehow highlighting national championships if it can be done in a way that clearly highlights and identifies the national championships.
• It's hard to anticipate all the ways in which the "one size doesn't fit all" point will play out. A couple come to mind. For programs like Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, a national championship section is key. For other programs without national championships, it might be desirable to identify conference championships. Also, some programs (Ball State, to choose a random program) may not have meaningful content to include in a "Lore" or "Culture" section. For a Division I FCS team, it might be desirable to have a grouping showing years in which they played in the NCAA tournament. There are many such variables. I am a believer in Justice Brandeis' view that allowing varied approaches to a problem fosters experimentation that benefits everyone. See Laboratories of democracy. Cbl62 (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cbl, with the games we've got pretty much every non-person article under the umbrella of Michigan football included. I think its a virtue to have all those bases covered and not let anything slip through the cracks. With games included, that's the non-person universe; it's covered. As for national championships, are they any less important for programs like Syracuse with only one as they are for those aforementioned programs with many? If Boise State wins the nat'l title this year, do all of their earlier conference championships become less meaningful suddenly? Do we suddenly want to delete special mention of their conference championship seasons and replace that section with a national championship section containing only the 2011 season? If we have special listing for NCAA playoff years, then might we not want special listing for bowl years or maybe just BCS bowl years? Why not keep it simple and list each year once and let the articles do the talking about what happened in each year? In the case of a Ball State with no lore articles, why not just leave that section out of the template for now? Then when the article for their mascot is created, crack open a new group for the lore add it to the navbox. Thanks for link to the political concept. I have some thoughts that might be applicable here, but I've said my part for now. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "closed loop," but what we should be trying to do with these macro/forest level templates is to help people access the most important information about the particular team. Even under the "closed loop" approach, it would appear that specific game articles are already "looped" because they are discussed and linked in the relevant "season" and/or "rivalry" articles. Another danger of featuring "Games" is that it may encourage a proliferation of single-game articles. With very, very few exceptions, individual games should be dealt with in the relevant season article. (Bowl games are a different story, and if there is a list for the team's bowl history, I agree the template should link to that list.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What I mean by "closed loop" is that you can navigate to all the articles linked from a given navbox using only the links in the navbox. There are no dead ends. What this entails is a one-to-one relationship between the elements of a navbox and where that navbox is transcluded. The closed loop concept really applies more the idea of including links to coaches, e.g. including a direct link to Lloyd Carr, as you and DirtLawyer suggest, but not transcluding the program navbox onto the Lloyd Carr article since we've decided that team navboxes clutter bio articles. In that case, I could take the Michigan team navbox to Lloyd Carr, but then when I'm at Lloyd Carr, the navbox is gone. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Jweiss11 left a note at WT:NBA as I also started a discussion on cleaning up this universal sports team navbox problem. I agree with Jweiss11's concept of "closed loop", if it means that all related team articles are "eventually" navigable from the navbox, but not always directly in the team navbox itself for concerns of space and relevance. I think especially notable seasons like championships should be highlighted. For some programs, those will be national championships, for others it will only be conference. I would recommend to remove the listing of all seasons in the team navbox and instead include a link like List of Los Angeles Lakers seasons. For "Pagentry" or "Culture and Lore" or whatever we name it, all links should be to articles or a section in an article. Not sure about CFB, but the NBA has too many links that are just nicknames of players or a one line mention (if any) of the item linked. I think itemizing retired numbers (with the names of the players) is important to understanding the key personnel that helped shape the team's history, and should generally be in the team navbox. I'm not in favor of blindly listing all coaches in the team naxbox, as I doubt in general they are all that important to the team history. I'm also not in favor of listing current personnel, as it is temporal, and it's not likely that someone reading about a game in 1960 necessarily would want to get to today's athletic director or offensive coordinator. As a suggestion, it might be better to break up this discussion by possible sections of the team navbox, so separate threads can be maintained for each?—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Big Ten starting quarterbacks

Just to make sure the rest of the project agrees with me, many of the Big Ten Conference quarterbacks aren't really notable, right? For example:

• Rob Bolden
• MarQueis Gray
• Matt McGloin
• Max Shortell
• Caleb TerBush
• Edward Wright-Baker

These players do not meet the GNG and have received only routine coverage in the media. I'm thinking of AFD-ing or PROD-ing them. Thoughts? — X96lee15 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think most starting FBS quarterbacks are going to get enough coverage to be notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JW. Starting quarterbacks for the top football teams will almost always receive significant, non-trivial coverage to pass WP:GNG. Your prod of Caleb TerBush appears particularly off point, as the article has 25 separate references, including several stories written specifically about him. Cbl62 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur. with JW. They deserve pages during their college career and likely should keep the page regardless of professional success due to WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree. I don't think merely being a FCS FBS starting QB is enough to establish notability, especially with the criteria established at WP:ATHLETE. The criteria listed there is VERY strict (all-conference first team is not enough to establish inherent notability); so to me, only in very special situations should a non-national award winner be notable. All the coverage Caleb TerBush, for example, has received is routine coverage for being a starting NCAA quarterback. Most of his references are game recaps and a few are for announcing him being a starting QB. Routine stuff consisting of a few paragraphs.

I think it's a slippery slope to open up notability to all 150-ish FCS starting QBs. This is probably the wrong forum for this discussion though, as the opinions are probably skewed for inclusion. — X96lee15 (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whoa, whoa, whoa. Nobody said FCS QBs were notable. I don't think anyone even said all FBS QBs were notable. Jweiss11 said "most starting FBS quarterbacks" and Cbl62 said, "Starting quarterbacks for the top football teams" with TonyTheTiger concurring. They were arguing that there would be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.
  X96lee15, I think the standard you're describing is stricter than that at WP:NCOLLATH (WP:NCOLLATH is a quick shortcut to the portion of WP:ATHLETE that has the most relevant criteria). Frankly, I'm not even sure Andrew Luck meets the standard you're describing, and there's no references in the Russell Wilson article that meet the criteria you're describing. OCNative (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, that's a typo on FBS/FCS. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And to clarify my point, I'm not saying all current FBS QBs aren't notable (Luck and Wilson are, as is Denard Robinson and others), but I'm saying is that a starting QB for an also-ran Big Ten team is not inherently notable. Mentions in local papers that someone has been named a starting QB and mentions in game recaps (no matter if there are 50 of these) is standard coverage and doesn't make a person notable. If that is the case, then there will be 150 FBS QBs that can have Wikipedia articles, and 130 of those will have their careers end with their last college game. If we were to revisit their articles in 10 years, then none would survive an AFD. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that anyone who starts a game at QB for an FBS team automatically qualifies under GNG or NCOLATH. Many will, and others won't. There's no fixed rule, and we need to look to see whether such players have received significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Passing references and stat lines are considered routine coverage, but feature stories about a player in editorially independent publications are generally not considered routine. The notability of such players is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Cbl62 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Disproportionate_coverage if anyone has any additional insight. Cbl62 and mself have already commented.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Season records tables, inclusion of AP, Coaches and BCS rankings, etc.

Gentlemen, the section above that started with a discussion of whether to include both major polls and the BCS rankings in the season records table left various questions unresolved. I propose to call a vote of CFB project editors on the various points in an orderly fashion so we can resolve these issues. As I understand the discussion, the outstanding issues are listed below.

• Voting to Close. At Jweiss' prodding, I suggest we close the initial round of voting regarding the season records table issues, as listed below, at 7:00 p.m. EDT, tomorrow, November 1, 2011. If you haven't voted or commented, and you desire to vote or comment, please do so before the expiration of my completely arbitrary deadline. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Inclusion of AP, Coaches & BCS rankings

6 support, 5 oppose

I am in favor of this, IF there are separate table columns for the subject team and opponents' rankings, AND the rankings are separated by spaced slashes in the following manner: "6 / 7," "11 / 12 / 10," or "23 / 25 / NR."

Yes. Per the question and formatting above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. If we're going to have multiples, BCS is a must, but I think it's going to be cluttered with as many as 6 rankings (3 for main team, and 3 for opponent). Still think the more complete data can be better captured through rankings progression tables. Less is better for the Schedule table. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Undecided. I need a mock-up to see what this would look like with so many columns and rankings - worried about clutter. Also, we need to make sure we accomodate Division I FCS, II, III, rankings. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

DeFaultRyan, if you want to play around with a mockup, I have one set up here: User:Jweiss11/CFB schedule table. We'll be able to accommodate lower divisions, as we are now. You can designate whichever polls you want in the table footer. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see how it looks in the context of a highly-ranked school like Alabama with all three ranking fields for both opponent and main team. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just added some pseudo-BCS rankings to the mockup. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Cbl62 on this as the multiple rankings do clutter up the schedule table and the information is found in the rankings progression tables. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Having this many rankings would be a unique Wikipedia convention (EDIT at 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC) see my revised comment below), and I fear that even with the legend in the footer, it would be horribly confusing to a more casual college football fan (e.g. people who aren't members of WikiProject College football). I also agree with the clutter and rankings progression arguments from Cbl62 and Patriarca12. OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This many rankings would not be a unique Wikipedia convention. See: Big Ten Football Weekly Release, page 12. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then: Having this many rankings would be a relatively obscure convention and way too "inside baseball" (so to speak), as it only appears in the occasional press release. Most people find it too weird for a general college football audience (let alone a general audience) that most schools, most conferences, and the media don't publish it in their general web sites. OCNative (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Very weak support. While it doesn't seem as cluttered as I had originally feared, I also see the chance for confusion among our readers. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, I just think it looks like garbage. I agree there is a problem here, but I don't think this is a good answer (not sure what is, though). cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. My only comment is that the heading needs to be worked on so our readers understand what the different numbers (rankings) mean. Rocketmaniac ^RT 07:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rocketmaniac, the footer of the table is set to explicitly define the which poll are being used. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Most reliable media outlets list one poll at a time for their schedules. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Reduction of dates to month and day only

10 support, 0 oppose

Saves space and reduced table width by eliminating year.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Undecided. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support The year should be clear since this is a table for a specific season. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I didn't realize this was even an issue... Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I think most of the team pages do this already, anyway. OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - I thought this was done already. cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support That's how I've been doing it. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Keep game site column

11 support, 0 oppose

Keep separate column for game stadium, city and state.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support only if we don't also have a "Loc" column. No need for both. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pile on support - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I see no reason to change. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Add separate location column for home, away and neutral site

1 support (qualified), 10 oppose

I am opposed to the addition of a separate column with designators (e.g. H, A and N) for home, away and neutral site games. I believe this is unnecessary and redundant because on-campus home games, on-campus-away games and neutral site bowl games are obvious from a review of the game site information (stadium, city, state).

No. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, unless item 5 (below) is implemented. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, unless the "site" column is eliminated. IMO one or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I prefer item 5. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per #5 - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Not confusing. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Add superscript designators for off-campus home games and regular season neutral site games

9 support, 1 oppose

This would add a footnote style superscript asterisk, dagger, double-dagger, etc. to designate off-campus home games (e.g. Arkansas Razorback games played in Little Rock) and regular season neutral-site games (e.g. Florida-Georgia in Jacksonville, Oklahoma-Texas in Dallas). The superscript designators would immediately follow the stadium name. It is unnecessary to designate on-campus home games, on-campus away games or bowl game neutral sites because these are obvious in virtually all instances. The new superscript designators would be tied to explanatory notes at the bottom of the table in the same manner as those for non-conference games, polls and homecoming.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. This will be of great help with Alabama articles! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, as this is a great way to clarify neutral site games and (especially) off-campus home games without taking up a whole lot of space. OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In light of Cmadler's comment below, I would like to clarify that I intended "off-campus home games" to mean "games not at the team's usual home stadium," and not to put words in anyone's mouths, but I believe that's what everyone else meant. I'm a Pac-12 guy, and I will note UCLA's home stadium (the Rose Bowl) is 25 miles from its campus; it was never my intent to have the superscript applied to all UCLA home games. OCNative (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. This seems like the best option. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose - If implemented, this needs to be not "off-campus" games but games played at other than the usual location. For example, Temple normally plays their home games off-campus at Lincoln Financial Field, and starting next fall UMass will play home games at Gillette Stadium. Games such as these should not be specially marked, even though they are off-campus. (Also, we need to look ahead and consider how to treat UMass in 2013 and after, when they will still play multiple games each year at Gillette Stadium, but may also play some games on-campus.) cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support For certain teams, this isn't always obvious. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Eliminate existing designators for away and neutral site games

5 support, 5 oppose

This would remove the "at" and "vs." that, under current formatting, immediately precede the name of the opposing team. The "at" designator is unnecessary----when six games are played in the subject team's home stadium (e.g. "Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, MI"), the away games are obvious. Do we really need an "at" designator when Michigan plays an away game in Ohio Stadium in Columbus, Ohio? Similarly the "vs." designator for neutral site games that, under current formatting, immediately precedes the name of the opposing team, does not even clearly and unambiguously convey its intended meaning.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I feel that this is standard practice in the media, for example, and I don't see reason to remove it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, as long as either item 4 or item 5 above is implemented. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support if item 5 is implemented, as that is the solution I prefer. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Indifferent. No strong feelings either way on this one. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This takes up very little space in the table, and as Eagles247 noted, it's standard practice in the media. OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. At least two CFB regulars have suggested that the use of the "at" and "vs." designators in front of the opponent team name is "standard media practice." Well, not exactly. For at least 20 years, it has been standard practice by the Associated Press in its pre-game lines and game schedules that are published in most newspapers one or more times in the several days before Saturday game days. The AP typically uses microtype in a 3-column format that includes the favorite in the first column, the Vegas line in the middle column, and the underdog team in the third column. This is a specialized use in a narrow context to designate the home team in a very small space. I challenge anyone to find a regular use of the "at" and "vs." designators in a schedule table such as ours where the name of the stadium, the city and the state are also listed. Where the stadium, city and state are already listed, the use of the "at" designator is completely redundant. Moreover, anyone who is unfamiliar with the AP's use of the "vs." designator for neutral site games is unlikely to deduce its intended meaning without a further note or explanation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. The @ is obviously unnecessary, and, as pointed out above, the casual fan may not understand the implied meaning of "vs". Better not to create extra confusion - the field should be enough for anyone who can put two and two together. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per OCNative. cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support If off-campus home games are identified, this is superfluous. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

7. Move non-conference game and homecoming symbols

7 support, 1 oppose

Move the existing superscript designators for non-conference games and homecoming from the date column to the opponent column, with the designators immediately following the name of the opponent teams.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This item seems pretty non-controversial and support so far is unanimous. I've gone ahead and pushed it live in the template. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. I'll just pile on to reinforce Jweiss11's change. OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I think homecoming, at least, has more to do with the date than the opponent. cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

cmadler brings up a good point about homecoming. I think we can all agree that "non-conference" is a function of who the opponent is and therefore the symbol belongs with the opponent. But is homecoming really about the opponent? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Strong support in favor. Being next to the date is not intuitively where it belongs. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

8. Remove rivalry game links

2 support, 5 oppose

Move existing wiki links for rivalry games from the records table to the article's main body text, individual game summaries, or separate "see also" sections, as most appropriate for the particular subject team and article. These links take up ridiculous amounts of space, unnecessarily increase the width of the records table on bigger computer monitors, and cause internal line-wrapping and spacing problems on smaller monitors.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Undecided. Are you also proposing removing the wikilink for bowl games? DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, bowl game links stay. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If bowl game links stay, then removing this column will have little, if any effect. Those bowl game links usually aren't any smaller than rivalry links, and the width of the column will expand to accommodate the bowl game, rivalry links or not. What would be the point of removing the rivalry links and keeping the bowl links? DeFaultRyan 16:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Undecided. I feel links to things such as the Iron Bowl and Third Saturday in October are relevant for inclusion. However, other "rival" games such as the Alabama–Ole Miss rivalry and Alabama–LSU rivalry are a bit much in the schedule box. However, this is inherently subjective in determining what rivals stay and what rivals go in the schedule box. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Undecided per DeFaultRyan and Patriarca 12's comments. I've added the related #12 below. OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been persuaded by Nolelover and Cmadler's arguments, and upon reviewing my comments from #9 and #10 below, I realize on this one I neglected the fact that some team pages don't have individual game summaries, so if the links don't appear on the schedule template, they won't appear at all (see Virginia Tech or Texas A&M, for examples from this season). OCNative (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose. While I understand that these are some of the biggest things in the template, they also seem to me to be one of the most necessary. In my mind, whenever you have a template like this and are cramming this much info into such a small space, its better to have strong wikilinks like this (strong meaning leading to more developed articles), almost as an escape if that makes sense. (Ugh...it doesn't upon reading that back, but I'll leave it.) Also note that this template is often the majority of the real content in an article, so I think these links might get lost in other places whether by editors simply not placing them, or people just not caring to scroll not past a page of white space to get to it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - the link to the rivalry article is often the most important for that game. cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - with the caveat that some standardization could and should take place. Sometimes these rivalries don't have a unique name so the article name is something like Notre Dame – USC rivalry. That could be shortened to say Rivalry game. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

9. Eliminate game times

4 support (1 qualified), 7 oppose

Remove game times from all season records tables, except the records table for the current season. Game times may be included in individual game summary infoboxes. Game times are minor historical information; if we are going to include both major polls and the BCS rankings, we have to find ways to simplify the season records tables and reduce their growing width to eliminate internal line-wrapping and spacing problems when displayed on smaller monitors.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Especially for current season articles, readers go to these pages to see times for games. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This stuff belongs in {{AFB game box start}} in game summaries/details as per 2011 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team#Game notes. Let's tighten up the overall season presentation. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as this comes up from time to time, such as discussions of a team's first night game in X seasons (for example, from this season: Michigan's game against Notre Dame was their first home night game ever, and Notre Dame's game against USC was their first home night game in 21 seasons). Also, some team pages don't have individual game summaries (see Virginia Tech or Texas A&M, for examples from this season). OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Definite oppose - Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support If this can be done automatically so that after the season is over the column disappears, I think this is a good idea. If, however, someone has to program a bot to go back and remove them all, then oppose. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

10. Eliminate attendance

2 support, 7 oppose

10. Eliminate attendance. Same logic as that applicable to game times, although I personally believe that attendance numbers are more historically noteworthy than game times.

Yes. This is a weak "yes" vote; if we find other ways to simplify the season records tables and reduce their width, I would not object to keeping the attendance figures. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This stuff belongs in {{AFB game box start}} in game summaries/details as per 2011 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team#Game notes. Let's tighten up the overall season presentation. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose For many teams, the schedule box is the only place that has attendance figures, as they don't have individual game summaries (see Virginia Tech or Texas A&M, for examples from this season). OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, since I don't really see anywhere else it could go. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Useful information without another "home" within the articles. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

11. Primary broadcast TV network only

8 support, 0 oppose

11. Primary broadcast TV network only. In order to reduce table width and internal line-wrapping and spacing problems within the tables, only the primary broadcast network will be listed. Secondary broadcast and re-broadcast networks may be listed in the individual game summary infoboxes. All networks listed will be reduced to standard three or four-character wiki-linked acronyms or abbreviations (e.g. "ABC" for ABC Sports, "FSN" for Fox Sports Network, "LHN" for Longhorn Network) to save space and eliminate line-wrapping.

Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support limiting TV information as much as possible, or even eliminating it altogether. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support I'd even eliminate the column altogether. This stuff belongs in {{AFB game box start}} in game summaries/details as per 2011 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team#Game notes. Let's tighten up the overall season presentation. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. I also agree that maybe this column should be removed altogether. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Support cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Strong support. More than one adds clutter and is confusing. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

12. Remove bowl game links

0 support, 4 oppose

See #8 above. Move existing wiki links for bowl games from the records table to the article's main body text, individual game summaries, or separate "see also" sections, as most appropriate for the particular subject team and article.

Undecided Though I'm actually undecided, I feel this should be brought up for discussion in light of #8 above (rivalry game links). OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose In light of my new opposition to #8, I will oppose #12 on the same basis. OCNative (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removal of bowl and playoff game designations/wikilinks. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - same reason I'm opposed to the removal of rivalry links. It needs to be clearly noted that a game is not a normal regular-season game. cmadler (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's everything, but if I missed something on which any of you would like to vote separately (or in the alternative to anything I've itemized above), please feel free to to add more numbered items for discussion and voting. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added my votes. DL, thanks for organizing this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for putting this together. DeFaultRyan 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1, for putting this together. (Though I'm a guy, I would note that you began this section with "Gentlemen" as if there are no women here. :P ) If we do implement these changes, I would recommend using a new template because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages that use the old template and could get pretty messed up if we just change the existing template. The ones from the older seasons might not get noticed for weeks, months, or even years. While a minor change like #7 can easily be done to the existing template without making anything screwy, a bigger change like #4 could make the old pages screwy. (Obviously, my point is moot if only the minor changes are adopted.) OCNative (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

1. 4 shouldn't mess anything up, provided all the instances are using the away and neutral template parameters properly. If so, then it's a piece of cake to just change the underlying table formatting. Not that I support #4, mind you. It's just that this type of change won't require us to revisit 2000+ pages. #1, 2, 5, and 9 (if only removing from past seasons) are changes that will involve cleaning up individual artices. The rest are template-only changes. DeFaultRyan 15:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose On the basis that there should be some designation that this is not a regular season game. Same goes for conference championship games. —Ute in DC (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions

It appears that commenting and voting has ceased on these issues for now. The results here look definitive on all but three of the points above. Item #1 (Inclusion of AP, Coaches & BCS rankings), which is the crux of this issue, it still up in the air. Support for item #5 is strong (Add superscript designators for off-campus home games and regular season neutral site games) while item #6 is mixed (Eliminate existing designators for away and neutral site games). I think everyone can agree that we have if superscript designators we don't need the existing @/vs. designations and vice versa. Perhaps we should close voting on the other nine issues and revisit these three, which really reduce down to two since #5 and #6 are effectively an either/or option. Should we vote again on these two points?

1) Inclusion of multiple rankings 2) New superscript designators vs. existing @/vs. designators

Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Date formatting in game summaries

So I almost did a partial revert to this edit, but the edit summary included "chg date fmt to match AFB Game Box template parameters" which got my attention. Looking the instructions from the documentation at {{AFB game box start}}, it reads "Date: Enter date of game in ISO 8601 format YYYY-MM-DD. Do not wikilink. (Example: For September 25, 2009 enter "2009-09-25")" I find this surprising. Does anyone know why 2009-09-25 would be preferred over September 25, 2009, or just plain old September 25? Also, should we change the documentation? OCNative (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers says not to use YYYY-MM-DD formats. I think the template documentation needs to be changed. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 28, 2011 TfD

Here is another TfD nomination that may be of interest to some members of the CFB project: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28#Template:Dislike and Template:Like. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

David Carr

Please see Talk:David Carr#POV pushing by User:Edday1051. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I added my comment. I support the idea that neither the Fox Sports article and the "Tweet" should be used. Rocketmaniac ^RT 13:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lehigh

Lehigh University football program. Yikes. I've requested the proper the article move, but this one needs a lot of help. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus All-America Team navboxes

Hey, guys. Here's a major CFB honor that's not been fully developed. We have year-by-year navboxes fully completed only from 1996 to the present; for 1995 and before, it's spotty and looks like we have navboxes for fewer than a third of the years. Given that this is one of the most significant honors CFB players can receive (arguably the highest other than the Heisman), I think we need to redirect some time and effort into completing these navboxes, and then expanding the related "list of" articles. I know where the NCAA references are buried, but I don't have the time to complete the templates. Does someone have the time to take this project on and see it through to completion? (And, yes, we need to lose the firetruck red on the existing navboxes and use default blue.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above on October 13, I made a 22 of the Consensus AA templates using Sports-reference.com. Then, I discovered this NCAA source. Probably the latter is the best source. I think others should start to chip in so that I have not done all of them. I prefer any color other than the default.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just stepping in to say please visit the WP:CBBALL discussion on default colors so it doesn't get split into two separate conversations between here and there. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Award navbox coloration discussion

Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Coloration for award navboxes for a new discussion on the merits of setting all award navboxes to default blue. Grazie! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 edition of the "Game of the Century"

Just want to see what folks here think of creating an article for the 2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game at this point or wait until after the game in a couple of weeks. With the ridiculous hype already surrounding this one, a Google search of "Game of the Century" "Alabama" and "LSU" already has about 1,400,000 Google results. The article will be similar to other Game of the Century articles, but I do not want to take the time on this one if it would be prematurely deleted. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to assume the game lives up to its hype at present. Create it when it becomes notable and you'll save a lot of time arguing at AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the quality of the article would be better if started now to fully describe the buildup. Now that it is clear both teams will be undefeated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am working on this in one of my sandboxes and will push it into the mainspace Sunday morning to avoid any deletion issues. Roll Tide! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Article started and moved into the mainspace now. Hopefully it won't be deleted! Patriarca12 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, even in defeat. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

University navboxes on coaching bio articles

Did we ever reach a consensus about coaching bio articles and university navboxes, e.g Bill Cubit? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove. It's overkill to have the all-in-one university navboxes on coaches pages, even if the coach's link is included in the university's all-in-one navbox. This may be an a perfect example of where a navbox is not always a "closed loop" of links with the navbox appearing on every article linked to it. The coach's article should already be linked to the main team article and the main university article in the infobox and the text (quite probably the lede). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DL, I agree on the remove. I wonder if coaches really need to be in the university navbox away (which would preserve the "closed loop" here). Template:University of Florida. I also agree that a coaching bio article should have prominent links to the university and team article. The standard for Infobox college coach is to link only to teams. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep If an article is included in a navbox, then the navbox should be transcluded on the article. Not all university navboxes are the same and I don't think we should try to make a rule for all of them. (unsigned comment by User:X96lee15)

Comment: university navboxes should be more the same, and we ought to start making standards for them so that they mesh with standards in place for college sports navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove. I also agree with Jweiss with possibly removing the coach links from the general university navboxes. DeFaultRyan 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I'll be making a much longer suggestion for a more uniform policy later today when I'm not working for a living, but, in the interim, I must strongly disagree with any suggestion that it is the place of WP:CFB, WP:CBB or any of the other WP sports projects to be "standardizing" university navboxes. Our writ doesn't run there and we would be overstepping our bounds in a big way; that's the province of WP:UNIVERSITIES and the individual university wikiprojects (for those universities who have them). We have a big say, arguably the first say, on what navboxes are transcluded on articles for college sports teams and their coaches and how those articles and sports-related navboxes are formatted, but we don't make policy for the main university articles. We need to be careful about starting a wiki foodfight, lest we be the ones with egg on our faces. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DL on that. It's none of our sports-centric WikiProjects' places to start imposing what we feel should be on university navboxes. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to comment that a lack of standardization elsewhere on Wikipedia presents a threat to standardization within the CFB project. And it's a point that is wholly germane to the strength of certain arguments here. Standards should never be about people imposing what they "feel", but rather based on sound arguments that build consensus. After all, the cooperation between this project and Wikipedia:CBBALL has successfully sold our coaching navbox standards to the NFL and NBA projects. But before anyone attacks the navbox issues at WikiProject Universities with college sports navboxes offered as a paragon, we should get own ducks in a row on that subject. This is a subject recently discussed at Wikipedia:CBBALL and should be brought up again here...more to say on that elsewhere. More generally speaking, any Wikipedia editor should think of himself as a Wikipedia editor first, and a member of WikiProject X second. Wikipedia is by its nature a highly integrated project and the boundaries between WikiProject overlap and blur. Consilience is a virtue. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yearbooks

I've started a resource here to compile links to online archives of college yearbooks. Yearbooks are great resources for pulling images (many of which are now in the public domain), checking historical facts, and fleshing out details. Many yearbooks are available at archive.org, but it helps to know the name of a given school's yearbook when searching. If you know of any good archived caches, please add them to the list. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. I may start one for WP:CBBALL. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to keep one list since these documents are university-wide and span football, basketball, and much more. It may be best for this list to live at WikiProject Universities. I dropped a note there about this. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

True. In any case, once the ever-evolving master list has found a permanent home, can you let me know where so that I can incorporate it into the college basketball project? Jrcla2 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's here for now. I'll let you know if it finds a new home. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This article might help track down a few more schools. - List of college and university yearbooks in the United States - 09er (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also this link http://digitalnc.org/collections/nc-yearbooks has about every college in North Carolina yearbooks

Thanks for posting. I'll working on getting the individual schools integrated into the list. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Penn State sex abuse scandal

Several editors have created an article on the Penn State sex abuse scandal. It's not in great shape (in part because it involves breaking news). Since it involves a subject close to this project, project members may wish to help clean it up. Issues of WP:BLP are particular concern in connection with this topic. This is one of the saddest college football stories I can recall in 40 years as a fan of the sport. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I had been meaning to. We should also keep a close eye on Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, and Mike McQueary. Really sad indeed. I had always thought of Sandusky as one of the good guys in college football.  :( Yuck. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The main scandal article has been semi-protected, as has Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, and Pennsylvania State University. I have reported the articles for Mike McQueary, Graham Spanier, and Penn State Nittany Lions football to the BLP noticeboard, and was unfortunately able to list numerous examples of some fairly egregious edits. Hopefully, this will help, though we should watch all those articles carefully (and some of those semi-protections expire sooner than others). If anyone notices any other articles with similar problems, I would suggest listing them both here and at the BLP noticeboard. OCNative (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PSUPlacekicker

Template:PSUPlacekicker has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See also and external links sections, interplay with infoboxes

I want to bring up two rather similar items that have long been points of contention between Cbl62 and me. On biography articles, I've made it standard practice to include links in an external links section to the College Football Data Warehouse and the College Football Hall of Fame where applicable utilizing Template:CFBCR and Template:Cfbhof for standardization. Cbl has taken issue with these links on grounds of redundancy and overlinking in cases where such links were already cited in the body of the article and/or included in the infobox. On the infobox, I think he has a good point. More generally, I think external links may not be appropriate for infoboxes. Infoboxes ought to convey information that is meaningful to the reader right there without having to leave Wikipedia. As such, I've commented out the three existing external link fields (College Football Data Warehouse, College Football Hall of Fame, Basketball Hall of Fame) in Template:Infobox college coach. With respect to cited references, I think the claim of redundancy is less founded. Even if one of these definitive resources is cited to support a passage in the body of an article, there is still utility in providing an isolated, standardized link to that resource in an external links section at the bottom of the article. In a well-developed article, any given citation may be a buried in a large list of references. The external links section serves to place definitive links in a predictable and easy to find location.

The second issue concerns "see also" sections. Cbl62 is fond of including links to relevant College Football All-America Team articles in see also sections. But in cases where the link is already included in the body of the an article and/or a dedicated spot in an infobox (e.g. awards field), I don't see the need for including it in a see also section as well. That seems rather redundant to me.

Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• External links. The issue of having "External links" to CFDW has previously been discussed here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 8#"External links". At that time, I noted that the infobox is the better place to have such links. Also, Strikehold expressed the same view that the infobox template has fields for CFBDW, DBF, etc. for this express purpose. There is no need to have the same link to CFDW in an Infobox, References, and then again in External links. I don't see any reason to change the practice. Keeping it in the Infobox is best. As Strikehold noted in the prior discussion, Wikipedia policy also disfavors using "External links" for these sorts of duplicative links. Cbl62 (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• All-America pages. It's common practice with sports bios when someone has won a major award to have a "See also" link to the page for that award (unless there's a navigation template, and then we use that instead). In the case of All-America teams, we don't have templates for all of them. Absent the template, a "See also" link is helpful and a good idea. I'm no fan of lengthy "See also" sections, but the cases we're talking about here are early 20th Century players who don't have a "clutter" problem. The case that arose today that led JW to raise the issue is Charles D. Rafferty where I think the "See also" link is helpful and not a "clutter" problem. Cbl62 (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Template:Infobox MLB player, quite probably the most-used infobox for North American sports on Wikipedia at over 16,000 transclusions, contains no external links. It also appears to be standard operationing procedure on baseball bio articles to include links to the Baseball Hall of Fame and definitive databases such as Baseball-References in an external links section. See Sandy Koufax for an FA-rated example. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case of pro football, we absolutely use the infobox to link to external sites like the Pro Football Hall of Fame, database football, and nfl.com and pro-football-reference. Those are very useful things to have in the infoboxes for pro players, and we shouldn't do it differently for college players. See, e.g., feature articles like Scott Zolak. Cbl62 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd take any example set by the NFL project with a big grain of salt. They are way behind the curve in terms of complying with basic formatting practices. They haven't even set up templates for basic stuff like standings and schedule. They are simply years behind this project. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to see HOF links in the infobox. I would also like to see a statistical link to a WP:RS like NFL.com. If the guy only played at the collegiate level, I am not sure I want a statistical link in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to see a list of important list links in a see also section. This includes AA teams.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted this diff and another, which had disabled all the established links in the Infobox, until there is a consensus to remove them. These infobox links have been around for a long time and serve a useful purpose. I don't think they should be unilaterally removed unless/until there is a consensus for that. Also, I've looked around, and there is simply no prohibition on infoboxes linking to off-Wikipedia content. In addition to the NFL player infobox, the NBA infobox links to the B-ball HOF bios and basketball-reference.com, e.g., Michael Jordan. Another example that I've used and found to be helpful is the field in many infoboxes that links to google maps for a geolocation -- that one is included in multiple infoboxes, e.g., Watts Tower. Many infoboxes also include a field for an external link to a person, government agency or company web site, e.g., Arianna Huffington, Detroit and Apple Inc.. Book infoboxes are another example where we routinely include limited, authoritative external links to WorldCat, e.g., Gone with the Wind. I don't see the need for a ban on having limited and helpful links to important external content in infoboxes. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have several points to make on the subject of external web links and wiki cross-links:

1. As a general rule, I have no problem with wiki cross-links in infoboxes being repeated in the main text of the article. Infoboxes serve as stand-alone information summaries, and as such, I have always treated infoboxes as a special exception to the general prohibition on repetitive links in articles. In doing so, I draw on my own Good Article evaluation experience, where this practice is routinely condoned. I have never found any MOS guideline on point that expressly sanctions or prohibits this practice.

2. Specifically, I believe that the external link to the College Football Hall of Fame that is embedded in the Infobox college coach template should remain. Other than the Heisman, CFHOF membership is arguably the greatest recognition a college coach or player may receive. (It certainly is the highest coach-specific honor.) As such, I believe it is well deserving of its little gold band and embedded link in the infobox.

3. I am indifferent to the embedded infobox link to the College Football Data Warehouse coaching records. The infobox already provides a career summary win-loss records and a list of head coaching jobs held. While CFBDW is a great resource, I'm not sure that it merits an embedded external link in the infobox. I typically use CFBDW as a footnoted source for the coaching records table and win-loss records cited in the main text. I also note that CFBDW links have been added to most CFB coach articles in the "External links" section; I believe there is even a specific link template for this.

4. Wiki cross-links in the main article text are preferable to "See also" section links. Wiki links in the main article text should not be repeated in the "See also" section. This is pretty basic. A more interesting question is whether wiki cross-links that are used in the infobox may or should be repeated in the "See also" section. I think this latter issue should be addressed on case-by-case basis, such as the annual lists of All-Americans, which are often pipe-linked into the year of recognition in a parenthetical (i.e. (1995, 1997)) immediately following an award or honor listed in the infobox (e.g. "First-team All-American").

5. It has become routine practice for many NFL editors to repeat external links such as NFL and college team profiles in the "External links" section, regardless of whether those links are already cited as sourced footnotes in the main article text. This is a practice that bears further discussion, here and on the NFL project talk page, before any global action is taken.

6. I have grown accustomed to the embedded external links to the NFL, Pro-Football-Reference.com and databaseFootball.com player profiles in the Infobox NFL player (and its predecessors). While I am open to discussing whether those links should remain, be removed, or be duplicated in the "External links" section, no global action should be taken until consensus is determined here and on the NFL project talk page.

7. Reference to the Infobox MLB player is interesting food for thought, but current MLB infobox practice is not a binding precedent for the CFB, CBB, NFL and NBA projects. Some flexibility within each separate sports project is desirable to permit experimentation and evolution to better solutions. We've come a long way in our cross-project standardization efforts in the last year, but I am mindful that one size does not necessarily fit all. I would also hate to squander a lot of the inter-project good will that we have engendered over the past year regarding those standardization efforts. We have several on-going discussions on this CFB talk page that need to be brought to successful consensus conclusions before we bite off any more. Stable and lasting solutions take time to build consensus. Focus, gentlemen. Focus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

DL, thanks for your comments here. I agree that we need to start bringing the open issues to a close. The first priority should be to revisit the schedule table issue and see if we can pull out some conclusions. It looks like voting and commenting has stopped there. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done some more thinking about the external links in infoboxes issue. Here's where I think the line should be drawn with external links in an infobox. If the textual value of a link field provides notable content specifically about the subject, then it's okay for an infobox. If not, it's not. Things like links to OMIM, OCLC, ISBN, ICD-9, and ICD-10 codes, and geographical coordinates all pass this test. But stuff like links to the IMDb or Baseball-Reference.com do not. We don't deems a subject's unique identifier on those latter sites to be notable enough to display textually. It's nothing more than a URL fragment. However, links to the IMDb and Baseball-Reference are indeed appropriate for an external links section as they are structured, definitive, and reliable databases. Templates exists to standardize syntax for these sorts of eternal links. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between Baseball-Reference.com and MLB.com?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

MLB.com is the official Major League Baseball website. Baseball-Reference.com is an independent website that compiles statistics. It pretty much the paragon of excellence for sports statistics databases. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cass Technical High School alumni

Mmany of you who cover Big Ten Conference football have probably heard of Cass Technical High School. I am the primary author of Thomas Wilcher and am sort of searching for more articles of athletes he has coached like Joseph Barksdale and Vernon Gholston. At any given time, the Michigan Wolverines football and Michigan State Spartans football rosters probably have a few people who belong in Category:Cass Technical High School alumni. If you know of anyone who belongs in this category, please add them. If you are adding any football players who graduated high school in 1998 or later ping me because I am looking for them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the school's own wikipedia page, I have been able to find all the rest of their NFL athletes, although none of them are products of the current coach.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Coaching record template for HS coach

Resolved

 – Formatting done. OCNative (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me format Thomas_Wilcher#Head_coaching_record.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, I added | ranking = no and | ranking2 = no to CFB Yearly Record Entry. I also added | poll = no to CFB Yearly Record Start. OCNative (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry template

I've taken a shot at creating a generic infobox for college sports rivalries: {{Infobox college rivalry}}. I had football rivalries in mind but it should work for other sports as well. Comments appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you want comments here or the talk there. I am going with Template talk:Infobox college rivalry. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Does Cal = UC Berkeley?

Resolved

 – Aussie and German told Cal = UC Berkeley. OCNative (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could somebody go to Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Cottle and confirm that Cal is indeed UC Berkeley and that when the name "University of California" is used in reference to one campus, it means UC Berkeley. I've had an Aussie and a German review the DYK nomination, and they're quibbling with the alternate names for UC Berkeley. OCNative (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks to Ute in DC for being the third party in telling the Aussie and German that Cal = UC Berkeley. The DYK was resolved and appeared on the main page. OCNative (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Vacated wins and the Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry

This issue was discussed at great length here in general, and as applied to this rivalry, and a couple of essays started (but never completed) thereafter. Here is one that I spent some time on: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories. The issue is bubbling up again at the rivalry article with the addition of a rather lengthy footnote that strikes me as premature, confusing, and problematic under WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:Synthesis. I've begun a discussion at the Talk page and I think the discussion might benefit from some extra eyes. (The essays too come to think of it, even if in fact virtually nothing has changed formally since the issue first came up several months ago). Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories, or at least I hope it has. The aim is to revive last summer's discussion - not about how the NCAA or other entities may treat vacated victories, but rather to reach a consensus, if possible, on how such treatment should be presented and annotated in the (increasing number) of team / rivalry / conference pages that are affected by the vacated victories. A little thought now will save us a good bit of headache in the future, I think, and I encourage other editors to weigh in. (The discussion there is still rather compact and straightforward and there is a benefit to getting in early!) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Top 25 matchup tables

I'd like to get some opinions about a a couple of new tables added at Michigan Wolverines football#Rivalries, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball#Rivalries and Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry#Rivalry details. Besides the fact that these tables have some horrific formatting and vague explanation, are they appropriate and needed? Their framing of and scope seem wholly unsubstantiated. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the point is about the horrific formatting issue. Could you be more clear. In terms of appropriate or needed, my reason for including these was that they present information depicting certain rivalries in a succinct manner. Is there a reason not to tell the reader how many "Big game" matchups a school has had against its conference foes. This basically describes official and unofficial rivalries on the field. There are of course geographic and historic reasons to be rivals. For Michigan football the Little Brown Jug is a historic rivalry. Similarly, the Michigan–Michigan State basketball rivalry has not been much on the court, but is intense geographically due to recruiting competition. However, a table like this presents the significance of the Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry and Michigan – Notre Dame football rivalry very well. The intensity of the UM-OSU rivalry is very clear in this type of presentation. I'd like to see the information presented in this format for all major basketball and football programs. E.G., I'd like to see the Duke-UNC line of this table on either of their basketball pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan of these tables. The color scheme is jarring and hard to read. (I get why the colors were chosen but legibility suffers.) The tables are also not clear - you have to stare at them for quite some time before you begin to understand what information they are trying to convey. On the football page is it, "number of times Michigan and these other teams met when both were ranked in the "top 25 / top 10 / top 5 / 1 vs. 2" - ? If so then I question why the particular teams were selected, for one. I get "Big 10 rivals" but why the others? It seems random. (Indeed it almost has to be, given that the source document at http://www.mgoblue.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/mich/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/series-scores goes on for half a dozen pages of small type.) Also how much information is really conveyed in the "1 vs. 2" column when only two of the contests show anything but zero? The basketball one is even more mysterious - the page is the Duke-Michigan rivalry. Why show Michigan's other Big 10 foes there? Why not Duke's ACC foes too? I guess to sum it up I'd say that tables are hard to read (legibility), hard to interpret (content), and present an unexplained mix of information of varying degrees of importance and relevance. The average reader would be far better served with simple hyperlinks out to the source documents so that if they're really interested in this sort of information they can look it up themselves. JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

To expand a bit more - the tables are both over- and underinclusive. The article subsection is "rivalries". The tables show Big 10 "opponents", irrespective of the importance the contest(s) each season or historically. (Michigan - Indiana in football is by no stretch a "rivalry".) The tables also do show some arguable non-conference "rivalries" but there appears to be no rationale for inclusion. Again football - why is Army in (the teams last played in 1962) and Stanford out? Syracuse would make more sense than Army. And I don't know how you fix that problem. As much as an improvement as it would be include Michigan-Stanford or Michigan-Syracuse in the table, neither one of those series amounts to anything like a "rivalry". My view is, if a rivalry is special or significant enough to warrant a prose entry, then these details can easily be added (to the extent that they are fact meaningful). If it is not then it's just clutter. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The format was chosen because the color schemes have been employed in 2011–12_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings and 2011_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#Rankings. I thought there was some feeling that these colors are a good way to depict the spectrum of conference teams. Do we want to do away with these color schemes? The non-conference foes were chosen because we have played them more than 5 times as ranked opponents. They could be removed or the hurdle could be increased. No one is saying Michigan and Indiana are football rivals (although they are rivals in basketball). I just feel that the information is something that tells me about the history of Michigan football.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I entirely agree with Jweiss and John here. The tables are confusing and seem rather out of place - I still don't see why there's a table at Duke–Michigan_basketball_rivalry#Rivalry_details. I don't have quite as much a problem with the color scheme, but that's minor compared to the other issues. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason it is in the Duke-Michigan rivalry section is because it presents data saying that we have played more important games against Duke than any team in our own conference. Is this not understandable from the data?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing? Have you ever heard of the AP Polls? What is confusing about the data? Do you not understand the table. They are no more confusing than 2011–12_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings and 2011_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#Rankings. After seeing these a few times you will get use to the content and probably start to look for it just like you look for these rankings tables.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You misread me. I can parse the data, although that is confusing from the POV of a reader. I just don't understand why the table is there in the first place. There's no prose explaining it; you (the original editor, I assume) are the only person who can look at that and immediately know what it is supposed to be telling us. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Duke-Michigan article it presents data at a glance. I also think that going forward all University X men's basketball and University X football articles should have rivalry sections or subsections. In these sections, the reader should be able to find links to all important rivalries. I also think that these tables are like the tables at 2011–12_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings and 2011_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#Rankings in the sense that after the reader gets use to seeing data in this format, he will sort of look for it. I could add some prose, I guess. Not sure what is necessary. The table is about as self explanatory as 2011–12_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings and 2011_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#Rankings to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's self-explanatory to you, because you created it in the first place. Yes, it may present data at a glance, but raw data does absolutely no good by itself. There are just so many different problems with these tables, but Jweiss does a good job of summing it up below. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The same point about games vs. Duke against games vs. Big 10 teams can be made more succinctly and clearly by simply stating it, with a link to whatever source you have. (Though you probably should come up with a different phrase to convey "important" - there may have been games, for example, to determine conference championships that didn't involve two ranked teams.) And indeed that illustrates another issue with the table, which is that "rivalries" aren't particularly defined by how high the two teams are ranked when a game is played. As I said before, the tables say too much and too little at the same time, and, rather than trying to fix the problem by refining the tables in some (essentially arbitrary) fashion, it'd be better just to say what you want to say in text and leave it at that. JohnInDC (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Pointing the reader to what you described above as "half a dozen pages of small type" is not really as much "more succint" as you suggest. Having written Penn–Princeton basketball rivalry, I am well aware that many rivalries are independent of rankings. I know Michigan has played many games against its conference foes when they were a game or two apart in the standings. Later in the season these games are important regardless of rankings. Furthermore, most of their games against Duke are in November or December when not much is on the line. Games in conference tournaments are important regardless of rankings. I am not attempting to argue about that. What I am trying to present is empirical data in a format similar to those the reader has gotten use to like 2011–12_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings and 2011_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#Rankings. I am pretty sure that the reader will get use to these new data just like they have gotten use to the rankings tables. It is no more confusing. It is a matter of you rendering an opinion without getting use to the table. These tables are extremely easy to understand once you are use to the content. Top 25, Top 10, etc. are terms sports fans know. The matchup tables tell you a lot about a program that is not easy to express in words. Tables of numbers almost never are easily expressed in extensive prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In regards to ranking tables vs. these tables...

Rankings are very straightforward. You are ranked such and such, and this means that certain voters believe you to be the ______-best team in the nation. What do these mean? The times that two teams are ranked is not a good way of judging the rivalry, and the overall table doesn't even really appear to fit in the rivalry section anyway. It's very subjective, and "the readers will eventually get use to it" is not a reason for inclusion. You may be right that tables of numbers aren't easily expressed in prose, but why do we need these tables of numbers anyway? That's the question that I don't believe has fully been answered. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It can not be fully answered if everyone is going to run around pretending not to know, 1) I chose the same colors that we have decided to go with in other important parts of the encyclopedia 2) Top 25 and Top 10, etc. are the natural buckets. You have me running around trying to argue about stuff that should be given. If you are interested in sports information, you understand what the meaning of Top 25, Top 10, Top 5 and 1 vs. 2 mean. Pretending not to so I have to run around debating in edit conflict is just bad form. You all understand what top 25 etc. mean. The colors are basically agreed upon elsewhere. I can't debate about the substance while you have me running around trying to convince you that I know you are all pretending not to understand what top 25, top 10, etc. mean.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this reply may have been pasted to the wrong place? I haven't objected to either. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In his first comment above, JohnInDC did a good job of explaining many of the problems with these tables. Per my complaints about formatting, for starters the use of team colors here is overbearing. We might want to revisit the similar use of color in articles like 2011 Big Ten Conference football season. It is certainly not appropriate at Michigan Wolverines football. As for the content itself, the inclusion criteria (which teams, which buckets within the rankings, which poll) seems rather subjective. Most importantly, as JohnInDC and Nolelover have noted, the tables lack basic explanation that allows the readers to understand exactly what they are looking at. It's not even very clear what the numbers in the data cells represent (i.e. number of games played). The table at Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry is really problematic because it prominently places Michigan-centric data without explanation on an article that is equally about Duke. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Duke Media relations office seems to have dropped the ball on opponent rankings, IMO. They don't present the proper data in their media guides. I would love to present the same data for Duke, but it is not possible. Additionally, this is a bit of a one-sided rivalry. Duke does not really care about any rivalry other than UNC. They don't even include the Duke–Maryland rivalry on their University template. Based on events last Spring, Michigan hates Duke more than Duke thinks about Michigan. Michigan basketball is one of many mosquitos attempting to make an impression on the Duke basketball program from what I can tell.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Jweiss, you are arguing as if you are not a sports fan. Top 25, Top 10 are the natural buckets. I could say I gave careful consideration to Top 11 or Top 9 and decided to go with Top 10 after hours of deliberation, but these are just the natural buckets. Which teams is just conference foes and teams we have oppose often as ranked foes. In terms of football, I am not suggesting there is a Michigan-Army rivalry. I am just presenting empirical data. Basically, I think your claim that you don't understand the buckets is just you pretending. Everyone knows that sports fans care about top 25, top 10, etc. should I consider Top 17 or something?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, we all know what the buckets mean and we're not pretending to not to be familiar with them. What we question how appropriate they are here and whether sourcing really supports the forms you have used. Your point about me "arguing as if you are not a sports fan" is apt. We should all be encyclopedia writers here first. Our sports fandom may fuel our enthusiasm for being here in the first place, but it should not dictate our decisions once we are here. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If the sources doesn't support something like X and Y have played 10 times as ranked opponents, then it doesn't support something like in the last 10 games the record is such and such in articles like Duke–Maryland rivalry. You have to allow for minor data messaging to present content to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, "massaging the data" constitutes original research per WP:OR or a synthesis of sources per WP:SYN. I quote from WP:SYN, "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." Counting games based on some category (here top-25, top-10 and top-5 matchups of ranked teams) requires to analyze the list of games, categorize them by the buckets of ranked-team matchup you have selected, and then present the newly compiled data in a way the source did not. That's the definition of original research per WP:OR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How is WP:SYN relevant. This is one source. It is the source the rivalry articles should be pointing to for counts of wins. Re WP:OR, How can you say counting wins, recent wins, home wins, last ten game wins, current streak wins and other types of mild messages are sourced and ranked games is not?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You don't need Michigan-Indiana in the table to make a point about Michigan's top rivalries. Or Michigan-Army. Indiana is not a "rival" but rather just a conference opponent. Army may have been a rival once, but hasn't been for 50 years. It is defunct, and as such of merely historical interest at this point - you might as well add in Chicago. Michigan's top football rivalries are already nicely encapsulated in prose, in the section labelled "rivalries" and the table, which includes some rivals, and many not (and - exclusively defines "rivalry" by reference to games where both were ranked) is simply shoehorned in. It does not add anything meaningful, it does add trivia, and it must be decoded to be understood. (The comparisons to the "ranking" pages, where complete information can realistically only be presented in tabular format - and where the reader expects to find tables and lists - only carry you so far, which in my view is not far enough.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating Indiana is far more arbitrary than including them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. The table is in the Rivalry section and Indiana is not a rival. This just underscores my point that the table is a poorly defined mish-mash of information - actual "rivalries" plus some mere conference opponents plus some but not all non-conference current plus moribund rivalries, all of which is presented to tabulate some but not all "important" games between them. It's incoherent. JohnInDC (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

At some level any conference opponent is a rival. The states are bordering. The teams compete for resources and recruits. On the field they may not be competitive at most times, but on some level all conference opponents are rivals. They may not count as an official rivalry game. It would be arbitrary to include some conference opponents and not others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The section is about "rivals", not about "frequent or nearby opponents". The section exists to take note of particular schools wherein the football contests with Michigan have been, through the years, especially important or emotionally charged. Much of the Big 10 fails that test entirely. You can't make a list of stuff, at least half of which doesn't belong, and then say it's arbitrary to exclude the stuff that, in fact, doesn't belong! JohnInDC (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"...poorly defined mish-mash of information". Indeed. That hits the nail on the head. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clearly defined All conference opponents and those non-conference opponents you have faced as ranked opponents a threshold amount of times. Nothing arbitrary except the threshold. Sure Army-Michigan is questionable, but since you guys are pretending not to understand everything else, I guess this logically follows.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jweiss, I remain willing to tutor you on the meaning of Top 10 and such if you want to continue to pretend not to understand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

AGF, Tony. Consider too that you seem to be rowing against a pretty strong current at this point. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to lack substance. All arguments are that I don't understand why you chose the buckets, the teams or the colors. These are all either unbelievable or correctible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the buckets. I believe that they include games that aren't important and leave out ones that were. I think that "rivalries" are not defined by mere conference affiliation, or by some minimum number of games of uncertain importance based on whether the two teams were ranked at the time. In addition to being only tangentially relevant to the matter of "rivalries", I think the tables are confusing, and unattractive, and do not make any point as clearly as can be made with words - they do not add anything, and challenge the reader by forcing them to be decoded. (Tables are for summarizing or illuminating or clarifying points that are hard to put into words. The point of these tables is unclear.) And that's just the football table. The Duke-Michigan table, by virtue of its one-sidedness, doesn't belong in that article. If Duke's side of it can't be sourced then neither side should be included. All of that is just for starters! These are substantial problems. JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

O.K. After I have told you guys it is clear you are pretending not to understand the buckets, you are finally all admitting to understanding them. Can you guys explain why you pretended not to understand them for so long. Please read the Duke-Michigan article. There is no point to be made on the Duke side. They probably have about 3 or 4 conference foes who they have played as many co-ranked games against. I am saying that for Michigan this is a big game. It is not really as big a rivalry for Duke, as I have said elsewhere. Confusing. Please explain to me what you are confused about in the tables. Is it the same stuff that Jrcla2 has suddenly forgotten?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I respectfully dismissed the amnesia claim the first time and I let it go. This is the second time, and I'm not as willing to let it roll. Please keep it civil or I will request an administrator to temporarily block you. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am just saying it is incredibly bad form/low class for you to understand a point one week and then claim to be confused by the same information the next.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You can say the exact same thing that the table purports to show in one single sentence. Which you already do in fact (though I'd say "top 10 or better ranking" rather than "highly", as the latter is vague). The table is completely unnecessary to establish the point, and includes an abundance of extraneous information. The table too is quite large and prominent compared to the interesting, but in some ways also tangential, point that it is meant to support. It's too much of something else altogether, and not worth the reader's time to parse. JohnInDC (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also note in passing that if Duke doesn't care about the Michigan game then it is quite a bit harder to describe it as a "rivalry" in the first place! JohnInDC (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry is defined by what the secondary sources say. I don't think the Duke team cares about a rivalry with Michigan and I am pretty certain Coach K is doing all he can to make it seem like it is just another basketball game. According to what the secondary sources say, there is a rivalry, regardless of whether the players actually feel rivalrous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who didn't quite understand those tables. To speak French for a moment, they're confusing as shit. Furthermore, they're unnecessary, especially given the lack of overall context as to why each of those teams were chosen and what those numbers are even supposed to mean. If there's a rivalry on Duke–Michigan basketball, which I now concede there is given the coverage of it, that (IMO) doesn't necessitate a table of Duke or Michigan versus other opponents. The KISS principle should apply here. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you also agree to pretend not to know what Top 25, Top 10, etc. mean. When I presented this content on the basketball talk page, you understood it. Have you suffered amnesia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No amnesia here, Tony, but your table is very confusing. The fact that I knew all of your arguments from the WT:CBBALL discussion and I still couldn't figure out what the hell your table was supposed to show (and neither could anyone else who's chimed in on this conversation) says way more about your table than it does any of us. It's not always "everyone else doesn't get it", sometimes it's "What I did doesn't make any sense, so it must be me". Jrcla2 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to these tables on several levels:

(1) First, these tables are not properly sourced per WP:V and WP:RS. The linked PDF of the Michigan Wolverines men's basketball media update provides only the poll rankings of the Wolverines teams, not the opponents listed in the table. Presumably, there is another source or sources for these match-ups of ranked teams.

Incorrect. Reread.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a page in the Michigan media supplement that provides a list of these matchups? If so, please provide the page number, because I can't find it. Did you use a source or sources other than the Michigan media supplement? If so, what are they? If so, they are not cited in your footnote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I just counted. In most cases, I did not need to use my toes. All from one source. In each case, it is a tight subsection of a page that I counted from. If this is OR, than I understand, but I do not think it is in this case. If it is OR than most rivalry articles are probably unsourceable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see what you did. As an aside, you really need to include page numbers in your footnotes when you are citing paginated documents.

The problem you note regarding most rivalry articles not being properly sourced is true enough, but it is a problem that is easily overcome by proper reference to the team's media guides, reliable secondary sources such as College Football Data Warehouse, and contemporary newspaper accounts from Google News Archives. On-line sources and footnotes are a magical thing. When we restrict ourselves to only restating in Wikipedia articles what the footnoted sources say, we often avoid editor conflicts and other big problems in Wiki World. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(2) Second, this compiled statistics table probably constitutes original research and likely violates both WP:OR and WP:SYN. Presumably, the editor who compiled the tables correlated the Michigan PDF sheet with AP Poll records and the media guides of the other teams based on the opponents, game dates, scores, etc. If so, it is original research and/or a synthesis of sources; in the absence of footnoted sources, however, I can only say that it probably violates WP:OR and WP:SYN. And, no, correlating multiple sources and compiling an original statistics table does not fall with the WP:CALC exception to the prohibition against WP:OR.

See (1) above and reread--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you use multiple sources? Did you correlate the games across multiple sources? If so, this is original research and/or a synthesis of sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is no table in the cited source that provides these totals, it probably constitutes original research and/or a synthesis of your single source. What you are calling "counting on your fingers" (and, yes, I do appreciate the humor) actually required you to analyze the data, correlate top-25, top-10 and top-5 matchups, and tally the totals. That's original research and/or a new synthesis of the data presented in your source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(3) Third, the use of 10 or 12 different sets of team colors is unnecessary and serves no identification purpose that is not already better by stating the team names in ordinary Wikipedia text. That many colors in so small a space is jarring to the eye and constitutes graphic clutter, and is exactly why we are reducing the use of colors in our CFB and CBB navboxes. Moreover, several of the team color combinations used as background and text colors are damned hard to read, and readability should trump colors every time.

This is a formatting issue. It can be changed. Formatting is not a reason to delete content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete the colors regardless of the outcome of this discussion. The color scheme is objectionable in and of itself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(4) Finally, this is another example of the problems I raised above in the discussion regarding unsourced rivalry records tables. Didn't believe me that allowing unsourced, synthesized, original research statistics tables is a slippery slope to hell? Well, here we go. Tough to object to one without objecting to the other. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Tony, neither do several of our other prominent CFB project editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be offline for a few hours. I am not ignoring you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is lost on readers if an entire table [Michigan vs. Big 10 opponents and Duke] is used to make a (few) point(s) [Michigan has played Duke more than any other non-conf. opponent or Michigan has faced Duke while ranked more times than any other team or whatever you were trying to say]. It could be useful if there were a source showing why it is important --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 00:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to observe a moment of silence for Tony's wall-induced headache :)

I have spent quite a bit of time in this debate running my head into the wall.

• Here is where I see things. The debate started with the claim that this is horrific formatting. Then I show that this is fairly standard Big Ten data formatting by pointing out 2011–12 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season#Rankings and 2011 Big Ten Conference football season#Rankings. That is content that will remain and be reproduced every year. If people really believe that the color is that horrific and they would be more worried about the content that will be propagated every year. Don't object to things just to make a point. The colors are official and are not used in a way that is problematic for those not able to see them.
• Then there were objections that the buckets were arbitrary. Top 25, Top 10, 1 vs. 2. are all common sports terms. Top 14 or something would be odd. I can't comprehend that any reader could want information about Michigan Wolverines football and not know what Top 10 means. People that want to be on a Michigan football page know what top 10 means.
• There are objections to teams included and teams excluded (mostly teams included). The lists are simple all conference members and teams that have been simultaneously ranked with Michigan as a foe a threshold amount. The arbitrary element is the threshold. I don't understand the objection to including all conference members. I do understand that not all teams included are considered official rivals. I am just trying to present information.
• There seems to be some confusion on the sourcing. These are all from one place. I had to count games within a list. However, we seem to accept counts of wins in the last ten games, home wins, current streak wins, etc. Counting co-ranked games is not any different.
• Is this content relevant or necessary. Well nothing is really necessary. I would be more willing to discuss this if you would all stop pretending to be confused on the meaning of top 10.
• This places overemphasis on rankings in terms of rivalry. This is just presenting information. Every team article can have a section on conference tournament games or other types of important games. This is just one form of important game. It does not mean that teams are rivals because they have played a lot. Many rivalries are geographic or historic and independent of rankings. Not every conference should use tables like 2011–12 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season#Rankings and 2011 Big Ten Conference football season#Rankings and not every team should have tables like these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My responses:

• The color formatting works - or at least, is less offensive - when employed in the larger scale tables of the rankings. This point was noted above. In the single-line context it is distracting and hard to read, and should be plain text. Indeed, every other editor but one has complained about the color scheme. Watch out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
• The problem with the buckets is not that they are arbitrary but are, rather, that they're irrelevant to the definitions of both "rivalries" and "important games". Or, if not irrelevant, then poor proxies. I've used the phrases "hodgepodge" and "mish-mash" before and my objection remains. The tables show numbers of contests against (certain) teams when both Michigan and the other team were ranked at particular levels in a particular poll you've chosen. What is the point of the tables, particularly in a "rivalry" section? In that context they come across as random and / or trivial compilations of facts. My reaction to the tables is, more or less, "yes, yes, that's all very interesting but so what?". Another is, "this information is plainly incomplete - what is included, what is excluded here, and why?"
• The criticisms are not "overemphasizing rivalry". You are inserting the tables into the "rivalry" sections of some articles, and in the of another article to underscore the notion that the series is in fact a rivalry. Another word I've used above, and will repeat here is "incoherent". You've explained how the table supports a point you want to make in the Duke - Michigan article and I've explained how the point can be made, clearly and with no need for further elucidation, in a sentence. The table does not clarify but instead muddies the point. In the other articles the point escapes me entirely. What does "number of games between opponents when both are ranked" have to do with the meaning or intensity of a rivalry? Particularly when, as you note, some rivalries (presumably not listed here) are "geographic or historic and independent of rankings".
• It is unpersuasive to say that you are "just presenting information". One of the principal jobs of us as "editors" is to, well, edit - to cull down all true and verifiable information that could be presented on a topic to a subset of that information that is encyclopedic, hangs together, and conveys information in a clear and accessible manner. Several other editors - six? seven? - have objected to these tables as constituted and as located in the two or three articles in which you've placed them. None has come to their defense. Obviously you put a good deal of work into them but with the weight of opinion so consistently against you it might be time to concede that, whether or not you understand it, the rest of us have a point. There comes a time - we all face it - when it's best to just walk away. Discretion and valor and all that, you know? JohnInDC (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, this debate started with the claim that the tables are poorly formatted, vague, and inapt. The problems here are multi-layered. The biggest problem, and one most fundamentally damning to their appropriateness for inclusion, is that these tables place undue weight on facts extraneous to the subject of the article, facts that very well might not even warrant the slightest mention in the text of the article, much less graphical highlighting and reinforcement. The most egregious example here may be the Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry. Answer this simple question: how germane is the fact that "Michigan has played Illinois in basketball 13 times where both teams were ranked" to the subject of the Duke–Michigan rivalry? I've spent some time reworking the prose of this article and the point about frequency of the Duke–Michigan meetings, i.e. that they've played each other more times than they have any other inter-regional opponent, is well made there. The table just dilutes that point with extraneous and potentially confusing detail—truly confusing not for us here who spend a lot of time editing these subjects in this medium, but confusing for an average reader coming across the material for the first time. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rather than edit my foregoing comments (especially now that JWeiss11 has added material) I will just expand on one point here, which is - other than the Duke-Michigan example where I at least see what you're intending - I ask again, what is the point? What does the table purport to show? What point does it exemplify, or illuminate, or amplify? Give us your best paragraph, in prose form, of what the table is intended to show other than raw fact. Is it that at least one of Michigan's greatest rivalries, as defined by number of times the two teams met as ranked teams, has not seen a contest in half a century? Or, that for all of its famous rivalries (OSU, MSU, Notre Dame, Minnesota), only twice has Michigan played in a 1 vs. 2 game? (I don't know if that's true or not but the table seems to show it.) That a new rival like Penn State has already surpassed (on this measure anyhow) an old one like Minnesota? See - the problem is, I don't get it. Those all may be true but they are all trivial - stray facts at best - and not at all worthy of mention. And I can't come up with anything more significant or meaningful than those examples. I have been trying really hard to figure out why this table is here, and what we are supposed to glean from it when we look at it. It's just - there. It doesn't help the reader understand anything at all but instead leaves them scratching their head, wondering what point they've missed that this thing is supposed to connect up to. JohnInDC (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(And, sigh, is it really true that the data in the table on the Wolverines football page is now 9 years out of date?) JohnInDC (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I could not believe it myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for action

Okay, I think it's time for action on this matter. In the absence of new support for these tables or at least compelling answers to the questions posed by JohnInDC and me ("how germane is the fact that "Michigan has played Illinois in basketball 13 times where both teams were ranked" to the subject of the Duke–Michigan rivalry?", "what is the point? What does the table purport to show? What point does it exemplify, or illuminate, or amplify? Give us your best paragraph, in prose form, of what the table is intended to show other than raw fact.") in the new few days, I plan to remove these tables from Michigan Wolverines football#Rivalries, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball#Rivalries, and Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have stated that the table is an attempt to show how many "Big games" (in terms of rankings) Michigan has played against its conference opponents. It was originally created as part of the documentation of the Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry in discussions at WT:CBB. People understood it in those discussions. Now, everyone has lost their brains. Have at it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I took it out of the Wolverines football page. I think this is supported by consensus. I feel the same about the two other pages but for now will leave the task to other editors. JohnInDC (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)