 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 28 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to National signing day. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Rated mid since it has general applicability, occurs cyclic and likely to be linked from other articles. -- MECU≈ talk 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a sociology major copied and pasted an essay into this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.148.110 ( talk) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks more like a poorly written middle school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.127.251 ( talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the worst article on all of Wikipedia. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.211.43 ( talk) 05:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
NSD is definitely important enough to warrant an article, but this needs a great deal of work. I couldn't get past the opening paragraph, it's absurdly overblown and factually incorrect (it is only the first day to sign a National Letter of Intent in Football and Men's and Women's Soccer) Almanley ( talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article deserves more attention as this is a HUGE day in college sports. In relation to the money generated by college sports, I believe that this day is largely influential. ( SmoothGenau ( talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC))
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National Signing Day/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| first off, why the heck is this article just about football, there is a national signing day for all sports. Also, does this seem to anyone else appear to be a modified essay on the subject, not a encyclopedia article? |
Last edited at 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
National Signing Day → National signing day – Not consistently capped in sources, so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, use lowercase. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per the ngrams which make a clear case for uppercasing. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per the data presented by Randy Kryn showing the capitalized version has about four times the mentions of the lowercase version over the last five years available. I'd be interested to see if this trend continues into the 2020s but there is no evidence that a large shift to lowercase has occurred during this time. Frank Anchor 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per above. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: the n-gram data clearly show that this term has never been consistently capped in sources. If you read the guidelines, it should be clear that we don't make our style choices based on a majority vote of sources, but by our own style of avoiding unnecessary capitalization. So the above 3 comments are completely at odd with MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Furthermore, the gradual increase in capping starting about 2005 is very likely influenced by the fact that WP has had the article at uppercase since it was created in 2004, and WP has become very influential on all writers and editors. We should follow our guidelines and stop pushing the language toward ever more over-capitalization. Dicklyon ( talk) 09:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- So you still take the undue word "consistently" as meaning "always", 100%? It doesn't mean what you think it does, especially in this context. This one comes in at 4-1 in favor of uppercasing, so please withdraw the nomination and let's not prove the saying
"A foolish consistency..." as applying to Wikipedians and Wikipedia decisions. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 09:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, not 100%. The data show caps in the minority until 2005, and gradually increasing to near 80% (4-to-1 as you say) over the 15 years during which WP had it capped.
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, uppercasing is over 80%. Why we'd turn that on its head and lowercase now is almost beyond my capacity to stretch a point. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, not 100%. The data show caps in the minority until 2005, and gradually increasing to near 80% (4-to-1 as you say) over the 15 years during which WP had it capped.
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- It amazes me how badly Dicklyon is grasping at straws to try to make his case believable. Both the capital/lowercase versions gained a lot of usage around the mid-2000s, likely due to increased media coverage of the day by national media. However, it is very consistently capitalized, as shown by the capital version consistently having about 80% of the hits for at least the better part of the last decade available. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- So you still take the undue word "consistently" as meaning "always", 100%? It doesn't mean what you think it does, especially in this context. This one comes in at 4-1 in favor of uppercasing, so please withdraw the nomination and let's not prove the saying
"A foolish consistency..." as applying to Wikipedians and Wikipedia decisions. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 09:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't think a good enough case has been made to show there's enough inconsistency in capitalization to justify downcasing. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| On 28 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to National signing day. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Rated mid since it has general applicability, occurs cyclic and likely to be linked from other articles. -- MECU≈ talk 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a sociology major copied and pasted an essay into this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.148.110 ( talk) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks more like a poorly written middle school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.127.251 ( talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the worst article on all of Wikipedia. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.211.43 ( talk) 05:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
NSD is definitely important enough to warrant an article, but this needs a great deal of work. I couldn't get past the opening paragraph, it's absurdly overblown and factually incorrect (it is only the first day to sign a National Letter of Intent in Football and Men's and Women's Soccer) Almanley ( talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article deserves more attention as this is a HUGE day in college sports. In relation to the money generated by college sports, I believe that this day is largely influential. ( SmoothGenau ( talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC))
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National Signing Day/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| first off, why the heck is this article just about football, there is a national signing day for all sports. Also, does this seem to anyone else appear to be a modified essay on the subject, not a encyclopedia article? |
Last edited at 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
National Signing Day → National signing day – Not consistently capped in sources, so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, use lowercase. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per the ngrams which make a clear case for uppercasing. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per the data presented by Randy Kryn showing the capitalized version has about four times the mentions of the lowercase version over the last five years available. I'd be interested to see if this trend continues into the 2020s but there is no evidence that a large shift to lowercase has occurred during this time. Frank Anchor 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per above. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: the n-gram data clearly show that this term has never been consistently capped in sources. If you read the guidelines, it should be clear that we don't make our style choices based on a majority vote of sources, but by our own style of avoiding unnecessary capitalization. So the above 3 comments are completely at odd with MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Furthermore, the gradual increase in capping starting about 2005 is very likely influenced by the fact that WP has had the article at uppercase since it was created in 2004, and WP has become very influential on all writers and editors. We should follow our guidelines and stop pushing the language toward ever more over-capitalization. Dicklyon ( talk) 09:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- So you still take the undue word "consistently" as meaning "always", 100%? It doesn't mean what you think it does, especially in this context. This one comes in at 4-1 in favor of uppercasing, so please withdraw the nomination and let's not prove the saying
"A foolish consistency..." as applying to Wikipedians and Wikipedia decisions. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 09:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, not 100%. The data show caps in the minority until 2005, and gradually increasing to near 80% (4-to-1 as you say) over the 15 years during which WP had it capped.
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, uppercasing is over 80%. Why we'd turn that on its head and lowercase now is almost beyond my capacity to stretch a point. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, not 100%. The data show caps in the minority until 2005, and gradually increasing to near 80% (4-to-1 as you say) over the 15 years during which WP had it capped.
Dicklyon (
talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- It amazes me how badly Dicklyon is grasping at straws to try to make his case believable. Both the capital/lowercase versions gained a lot of usage around the mid-2000s, likely due to increased media coverage of the day by national media. However, it is very consistently capitalized, as shown by the capital version consistently having about 80% of the hits for at least the better part of the last decade available. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- So you still take the undue word "consistently" as meaning "always", 100%? It doesn't mean what you think it does, especially in this context. This one comes in at 4-1 in favor of uppercasing, so please withdraw the nomination and let's not prove the saying
"A foolish consistency..." as applying to Wikipedians and Wikipedia decisions. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 09:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't think a good enough case has been made to show there's enough inconsistency in capitalization to justify downcasing. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)