This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vacated victory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Vacated victory appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I had been under the impression that this page was going to be fashioned into an essay that summed up what's known and what isn't about how "vacated" victories in NCAA contests should be treated, and describing whatever consensus Wikipedia editors reach on how to treat such contests in NCAA-related articles. I'm not sure how useful the exercise is as a standalone article, inasmuch as the universe of known information is captured in one official statement of NCAA policy plus one on line article describing the views of someone at the NCAA, and two similar ones without sources. Much of what is in this article right now largely sums up our discussions in one or another forums, which doesn't seem to have much of a place in an actual, properly sourced article. I'll hold off editing the article either way until it's clear what the mission is. What're folks' views? JohnInDC ( talk) 01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The NCAA policies apply to all of the sports it oversees. Why confine this article to NCAA football? Indeed it is more likely to confuse, rather than enlighten, the naive reader who may come away from the narrow article thinking that the NCAA would treat different sports differently. It would make more sense to write an article entitled "Forfeits and Vacancies (NCAA athletics)", with an internal section about whatever additional is known specifically about "series records in college football". Though even then I can't imagine that the practices would be any different for basketball, baseball, lacrosse or what have you. (I also think that page titles in sandboxes are altogether provisional anyhow so I'm not going to clutter up folks' watchlists by making the move now, and before discussion.) JohnInDC ( talk) 11:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Alyo ( talk). Self-nominated at 07:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Typically for the nomination, the text provide for each hook after "Source" should be the text from the actual source that back the hook, not the text from the article. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Approved ALT2. I don't have other suggestions.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vacated victory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Vacated victory appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 January 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I had been under the impression that this page was going to be fashioned into an essay that summed up what's known and what isn't about how "vacated" victories in NCAA contests should be treated, and describing whatever consensus Wikipedia editors reach on how to treat such contests in NCAA-related articles. I'm not sure how useful the exercise is as a standalone article, inasmuch as the universe of known information is captured in one official statement of NCAA policy plus one on line article describing the views of someone at the NCAA, and two similar ones without sources. Much of what is in this article right now largely sums up our discussions in one or another forums, which doesn't seem to have much of a place in an actual, properly sourced article. I'll hold off editing the article either way until it's clear what the mission is. What're folks' views? JohnInDC ( talk) 01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The NCAA policies apply to all of the sports it oversees. Why confine this article to NCAA football? Indeed it is more likely to confuse, rather than enlighten, the naive reader who may come away from the narrow article thinking that the NCAA would treat different sports differently. It would make more sense to write an article entitled "Forfeits and Vacancies (NCAA athletics)", with an internal section about whatever additional is known specifically about "series records in college football". Though even then I can't imagine that the practices would be any different for basketball, baseball, lacrosse or what have you. (I also think that page titles in sandboxes are altogether provisional anyhow so I'm not going to clutter up folks' watchlists by making the move now, and before discussion.) JohnInDC ( talk) 11:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Alyo ( talk). Self-nominated at 07:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Typically for the nomination, the text provide for each hook after "Source" should be the text from the actual source that back the hook, not the text from the article. — Bagumba ( talk) 11:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Approved ALT2. I don't have other suggestions.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)