College football Project‑class | |||||||
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've come here before when I've had an issue before and I am having a minor one again and would like to know what those here think. A user called Baseball_Bugs edited the Minnesota Golden Gophers football page on December 12th - his edit changed the phrase "They compete in NCAA Division I-A and the Big Ten Conference" by replacing the word "compete" with "play". His edit comment was "Let's not overstate the situation" - an obvious joke about how bad of a season the Gophers had last year. Well, I changed it back. He then did it again, commenting "The do play in the Big 10. Saying they 'compete' is POV-pushing, especially for a team that finished 1-11" which is another joke. And the argument that using the word "compete" is an NPOV issue is completely ridiculous. Another user changed it back to "compete". Well, Baseball_Bugs has persisted in his quest to make the change and I have kept changing it back. I noticed that he has also started going to other pages to make similar changes such as Michigan Wolverines football - I think "compete" is a better term and is more accurate than "play" and was just wondering what opinions here are.
JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)I have tried talking to him on his user page but it hasn't helped. I suppose I'll have to start a discussion on the Gopher football page's talk page to try to get a consensus. Anyway, I'm just looking for input from other college football fans. Thanks! Gopherguy | Talk 15:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that if you were to talk to any head coach in the NCAA or NAIA or NJCAA that coaches football or any other sport, they would say that taking any team at all for granted is a very big mistake. "Compete" is the right word, you are correct and the other user is not.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
So then the question is whether competition implies intent or actual action. In this case, merely by having a football team, Minnesota is a competitor for the Big 10 title. The intent is there, and though they did not win, they still competed. Now, if they were the only team in the conference, there would have been no competition. They could have still played games -- but there would have been no competition. Intent defines competition. The end result does not define it. Is a football game still a football game if the score is 222-0? The NCAA thinks so, and so Georgia Tech is awarded a win over Cumberland. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. The dictionary definition of compete is "To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory." Whether or not one team was only able to put up a lackluster effort, they still competed. Merely showing up and playing qualifies as a competition. So far, I have not heard of a single editor who agrees with you. Therefore, I believe the article should reflect this apparent consensus.↔ NMajdan• talk 02:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, did this ever get ridiculous today! Bugs, I think you're wrong. "Play" implies the possibility that there is no victor or victory. "Compete" is much more clear that there will be a victor and a loser. And no, it's not a "marketing hype" term. The do a google search phrase "athletic competition" and see for yourself what you get! The words "competition" and "compete" are widely accepted among not only industry peers (in this case, college-level foootball) but also on those who report on in it in the media. It is by far the most accurate term.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"Bugs" -- you are being belligerent in my eyes--there is no place for name-calling in this forum. Please stop. If you have something constructive to add, please do so. But obviously this discussion is no longer anywhere near constructive.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Can something be done to stop this abusive user?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I am getting VERY IRRITATED at being accused of being on a one-man crusade. Read the various ways "compete" is used in this set of articles [4] before you bash my opinions further. The term "compete" can be used to mean "striving to win" (as you all want it to mean exclusively) and is VERY OFTEN used to mean "capable of winning". It ain't just me. And, FYI, I'm a Cubs fan, so I know from losing and not being competitive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of this "consensus" vote (7-1), the term "member of" more accurately and unambiguously describes the situation than "competes in". The continued insistence on using that ambiguous and hype-laden word, along with threats to somehow get me banned for refusing to back down, amounts to bullying on the part of at least some of those seven users. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If we're counting votes, then make it 8-1. If we're trying to arrive at a rationale in support of of the eight, I'd say it's simply that when two teams get together to play a formally sanctioned football game, they are competing. This is true whether or not one of the two teams has any reasonable hope of success in that competition. "Playing" without "competing" is called a scrimmage, or perhaps an exhibition. JohnInDC ( talk) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Golden Gophers football team is a member of the Big Ten" is clear, unambiguous, and factual.
"Compete" is asserted as meaning "striving to win" by dictionary definition, although many sports fans take it to mean "having a reasonable chance to win". Either way is good, in its usage in specific games or rivalries. "The Golden Gophers football team strives to win in the Big Ten" sounds like rah-rah, sis-boom-bah, media hype. How is that "encyclopedic"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Bugs has not made an effort to bring in an outside opinion, I have. I do want to resolve this situation and I think to best do that, we need the opinion of somebody outside this discussion and preferably with little knowledge of these articles. Only they can tell us if using compete the way we have is in any way confusing or POV.↔ NMajdan• talk 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion: I don't see what the problem is with "compete". It seems to be the more accurate term. Baseball Bugs point seems based on POV logic. BB, would you mind restating your position (in like 3 sentences or less?) Phyesalis ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion
Bugs said he'd go with the outsider's assessment and end discussion of the point, so why do we continue to beat on it? It's all so, so - 2007. Surely we can find newer windmills at which to tilt. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
One new opinion: to say that a team competes in a division sounds a bit like they compete only in a division. I have no problem saying a team competes in the NFL or NCAA but I don't hear that the New York Jets compete in the AFC East because they also compete outside the AFC East. Food for thought. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The deletionists have zapped one of the two illustrations in Minnesota Golden Gophers football and are about to zap the other one. Good luck "competing" with the deletionists. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, bugs. What you need to do is realize that the consensus is against your idea. Right or wrong, that's the consensus. Wikipedia does not exist to make any one person 100% happy, but to build a consensus resource. (Dang, I just woke up from my Wikinap).-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You say that your goal is to be more clear, but it seems your only intent to ridicule the University of Minnesota's football team in light of their most recent season. Oh, and I have no idea how many hundreds or thousands of other readers had the same reaction as you and yet didn't bother raising the issue because they... well... didn't bother to ... raise... the ... issue...
...But if you want, I'd be willing to grant that thousands of people agreed with you but didn't think it was worth mentioning.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised by all the letters spilled on this topic. My opinion: "competes in" is synonymous with "plays in". The question of if they effectively compete/play is something else entirely. This shouldn't be wasting as much otherwise productive time as it is. Why not move on? -- Bobak ( talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not that we disagree with you, it's just that we don't care! And neither do the alleged thousands of others who saw the page and didn't think it was worth mentioning either. This argument has been dead so long it's decomposing...-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the USC football page words it this way, and I think this is a good model for the Big 10 football pages to follow: "The USC Trojans football program, established in 1888, is a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I-A and the Pacific Ten Conference (Pac-10) under head coach Pete Carroll." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
BB, Since my post I've been reading the feedback and throughout the discussion something always bothered me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until someone mentioned it above. The football teams are not "members" of a conference, but the school is. Accordingly, there shouldn't be any mention as the team belonging to a certain conference, but that the school is a member of the conference. A "team" or individual can "compete" in any venue it chooses to compete, but conference affiliations are between schools, not football teams. Accordingly, I support the general consensus of this subset of the Wikipedia community that "compete" is an appropriate word choice.
Additionally, please read WP:CONSENSUS. It states that a vote, while not binding, does help establish a baseline for claiming consensus and shows where everyone stands. Furthermore, the general tone from the quantity of editors is that they don't support your opinion (as another editor stated, "right or wrong" is irrelevant...especially when one takes into account that an opinion about word choice cannot explicitly be "right" or "wrong"). I've been "outvoted" before and yielded to consensus. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal.
38-24 in the BCS championship, somewhat of an improvement on last year's 41-14 rout. If this is the best the Big Ten can do... if this is your idea of "competing"... maybe the Big Ten should give up football and take up something they know how to do. I'm thinking they could easily beat the likes of LSU and Florida in Competitive Snowplowing, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In order to clarify everyone's position, please state your support or opposition to the following statement:
I have warned Baseball Bugs that he is being destructive, that future such behavior could result in blocking, and that if he wishes to continue the matter that the proper venue should be RfC. [7] Johntex\ talk 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been going through and adding WP:CFB tags to the talk pages of college football articles that need them, and I've run across a few college mascot pages that aren't part of the Wikiproject. That brings up an interesting argument -- should mascots be included in this Wikiproject?
My initial thought is no. After all, they're not specific to football alone, and represent the entire athletic department and school, not just the football team. But we've also got two in our list of high-rank college football articles. So I ask you all -- should mascots be included in this wikiproject? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 02:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the portal asking for an image for 2007/1? It should be looking for 2008/1, which already exists. Can someone fix this? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that all the base team pages have the "®" automatically added to the end of the image. While most schools have registered their trademarks, there's always a possibility that a school might be ™ for whatever reason (especially if its new). I just tend to lean away from blanketing, sight unseen, any and every image with the "®". As a lawyer, I wouldn't do it unless I knew it was certain. -- Bobak ( talk) 22:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm confused. Yesterday, when I left, we had slightly over 4400 articles in this project. I get here today and we have nearly 9400? Where did these 5000 articles come from? I requested a both go through a list of 2000 articles and tag any that were not part of the project but a) I don't know if that was done yet and b) I was expecting maybe 20% of those 2000 to not be tagged. Does anybody have any clue where these 5000 came from?↔ NMajdan• talk 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess what might be the problem is how far do we want to go in terms of tagging. While tagging Vinny Testaverde makes perfect sense, given his role at Miami, is tagging Ken Clark (running back) necessary? That kind of stuff will apparently need to be decided. Wizardman 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could have restricted the bot to articles where the word "compete" appears. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
...I'm sure I'm missing some, plus I've completed several schools of coaches without pages for every coach (Kansas State, Kansas, Temple, etc). At an average of 20 coaches per school, that works out to be about 440 new articles from my work in small colleges. It's my fault!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Bill Stewart's page is brand new and could use some help. With some great editing work I think it would be a perfect candidate for "Did you know...?" on the Main Wikipedia page. I already added his entry to the "New College Football articles" on the main page. Please help is you can. Thanks! Seancp ( talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The page, Boston College Eagles football is in poor shape. I have been trying do make it better, but particular season's may help it, A Post of Each Season's Record, and a More In-Depth History. -- IAMTHEEGGMAN ( talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've made this comment to others in the past. I don't get this "attempt" wording. If this is a project, then it has an objective. It shouldn't be worded so tentatively. It should say "this project's objective is..." Keep in mind the following credos:
Template:WikiProject College football
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noted on the pages that the Bowl Championship Series contracts are up in 2010. However the location templates of the [[ BCS National Championship Game go on to 2018 on the pages of Louisiana Superdome, Dolphin Stadium, Rose Bowl, and University of Phoenix Stadium. With the possible addition of the Sugar Bowl being added to the rotation. Are those venues all confirmed for those years of the BCS. If they are not confirmed then they should be removed from those pages immediately. Sawblade05 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on 2008 Iowa Hawkeyes football team for awhile now, but I've come across a question that I think should be brought up here. In the schedule, I linked the opposing teams to the university page, rather their respective 2008 season pages. I did this for the sake of not being repetitive, as the 2008 season pages will be linked in the game notes (or in my case, the season) section. I know I might be fretting about nothing, but I thought there should be at least some consensus in how I do this.
I was also wondering about the possibility of someone just going through the article just to give me things to improve on (such as NPOV issues) as we reach a "dead" period in college football. I'd very much appreciate any outside input on this article; I've pretty much been the only one working on it. Thanks in advance. CrdHwk ( talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What is our policy/Wikipedia policy on incredible short articles? I'm tempted to either prod or AfD articles that have no prose whatsoever such as 1999 Rose Bowl, 1894 Oregon Ducks football team, 1994 Oregon Ducks football team etc. Should we make it a rule that an article can not just contain a schedule or a result but must contain some form of prose? I'd even be more inclined to keep some of those season articles if they contain a bit more information like the coaching staff and roster. But in the current state of just a schedule, I think they should go. Any thoughts or should I go ahead and prod these types of articles? Going through the list of unassessed articles will probably yield many of these types of articles.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... when I view Vince DiFrancesca, I see there are two coach's navboxes--ISU and Western Ill... so when I view/edit the page for Coach DiFran, I see that Western's navbox is "LeathernecksCoach" -- but when I click on "edit" it takes me to "Template:MSUBearsCoach" ... can anyone repeat this and offer a solution?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
So apparently, there were a lot of articles in the college football categories not tagged with our banner. I'm using AWB to go through and add them to the project but I'll have to go back and add ratings when I can. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Check out Category:Unassessed college football articles for the list. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject College football|class=|importance=}}
) and for people, also add the Biography WikiProject Banner ({{WPBiography|sports-work-group=yes|living=|class=|priority=}}
).↔
NMajdan•
talk
14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Ok, some serious help is needed getting all our new articles tagged. The bot that assesses articles that already have an assessment from another project has ran, so all that is left is unassessed articles. Any help would be appreciated.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{WPBiography|sports-work-group=yes|class=|living=}}
), if the article has no references, add {{unreferenced}}
, and if the article is about a living person with no references, then add {{BLPsources}}
.↔
NMajdan•
talk
15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that if anyone gives out our CFB barnstar award, that they publicize the fact here. This would help increase the benefit of getting such an award and we can all pile-on our thanks and see some more of the good works going on around the project. MECU≈ talk 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey gang, I have a request for a bot. I've been doing lots of work on small college coaches and recently have found myself "filling in the blanks" for coaches that don't exist on major colleges. Example, I just made stub articles for all the missing coach articles for Iowa State University.
Anyway, it takes some manual work to do that because sometimes the artilces exist and need to be merged--other times I just copy up my standard layout stub article.
What I'd like is a BOT that can run through a template (like Iowa State's {{CyclonesCoach}} below) from my user page and hit every coach's talk page to put templates on the talk page
{{WPBiography|sports-work-group=yes|class=stub|living=}} {{WikiProject College football |class=stub |importance=low}}
Can anyone take that on??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We currently name our season articles 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. I believe this is mostly accurate (FBS stands for Football Bowl Subdivision, so is the football really necessary?). However, several articles have been created for prior seasons (see 1957 college football season through 1975 college football season). I was looking at the history of the NCAA from the NCAA website trying to figure out the best naming convention. Just having college football season brings in a lot of ambiguities. Should we rename these articles 1975 NCAA Division I football season and 1960 NCAA football season? It looks like the NCAA as we know it was formed in 1910 (might need to check around to be sure of this), so these articles, when they are created, would just be 19xx NCAA football season. In 1973, it split into NCAA Division I, II, and III. In 1978, the football side further split in Division I-A and I-AA (now FBS and FCS, respectively). I'm working on a new template and wanted to get input before getting too far: User:Nmajdan/Test. Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been some well-intentioned confusion over the naming conventions of the USC Trojans. Right now the college player infobox will only show the Trojans' colors if the "|school=" line reads "Southern California Trojans", a combination that's never used. Can we switch this to work with "USC Trojans" or simply "Southern California"? I can't figure out how that infobox works. I noticed this issue when working on Chilo Rachal, see this edit. -- Bobak ( talk) 22:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the simple question: to "(football coach)" or not to "(football coach)" ??
A Wikipedia user (or perhaps several) has been moving pages like Harold Elliott (football coach) to Harold Elliott. Traditionally it has made sense to me and others that we add the tag "(football coach)" or "(American football)" or some other identifier to the end of the name to avoid conflicts such as Harold Edward Elliott.
Naturally some coaches such as Knute Rockne and Amos Alonzo Stagg don't need the tag, and I'm not advocating going back through and putting it on everybody. I'm just opening a discussion to see if anyone objects to having a unique identifier on the page name.
Ideas??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recently come across some lists such as Green Bay Packers seasons and Chicago Bears seasons, and thought it would be a good idea to start one for my Hawkeyes. Well, I've gotten a decent start on it, but I can't figure out how to un-bold everything in the template. You can view the page here, and the template is just a quick scroll down. I've compared templates with the other pages but I can't find anything different about them. I would like to have just conference championships bolded with everything else in regular text. Any help is appreciated. If you know what's wrong and it won't take too long, go ahead and edit it. I wish I was more skilled in this department, because I actually just copied-and-pasted from the Packers article to get a start on it. Thanks in advance for any help. CrdHwk ( talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created two sample articles for early College Football All-America Teams. They are:
Before rolling out further into other years, I would be interested in any feedback that folks here might have. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons for featured list status. Please, if you have any time at all, I ask that you participate in the discussion here. Any and all votes/opinions are greatly appreciated. Thank you. CrdHwk ( talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD. This is a candidate whose debate will significantly affect WikiProject College Football. Please participate in the debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal if possible. Thanks. -- Thör hammer 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going through the list of unclassified CFB articles and doing some classifying, and I thought this would be a good time to bring up the topic of article classification. I'd suggest a series of guidelines to establish a default baseline for classifying articles, which can obviously be overwritten if there's some sort of extenuating circumstances.
This is what I've come up with so far:
These are just guidelines, and obviously there's going to be exceptions to the default importance. Something like the Michigan-Appalachian St. game would probably get mid/high importance during the 2007 season, but from the 2008 season onward, it'd probably drop to mid/low importance, depending on the aftereffects it caused.
Any thoughts? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent) Okay, then. Is there a downside to this? From what everyone's saying, no one uses it, it involves more work to keep it, it's easy to implement, and has no lasting implications. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have edited the banner, removing all references to importance ratings. This should slowly remove articles from Category:College football articles by importance. This can easily be reverted if, for some reason, we change our minds. However, I will wait a little while before starting the deletion of the categories.↔ NMajdan• talk 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The categories have cleared. Delete?↔ NMajdan• talk 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one seems to have objected, can someone archive this discussion and put a link to it on the discussion page? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:192.60.230.113 has been adding depth charts for 2008 to school football articles. This would purely be speculation and would not be allowed, after all, this is an encyclopedia. I have been reverting them, but stopped for a minute to see if there was any discussion on this project about that, which I see there is not. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I do not believe that these depth charts should be listed. Some of these players may not be in school next season due to either going into the draft or academic reasons. Also, this user has been listing projected incoming players which is definately speculation until after National signing day. -- Pparazorback ( talk) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the Wikiproject College football banner on the talk page for Fifth Down Game (1990). It's in the code, and it appears as if the syntax is correct, but Wikipedia isn't detecting the banner. It doesn't show up in the list of GA-class college football articles, and it doesn't show up when you expand the Wikiproject shell. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone help me expand the Brandon Saine article? If so, if you find anything about him that could go in, feel free to put it in his article (w/ ref.). Thanks. Burner0718 ( talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI to anyone interested, I have created a list of every page that transcludes {{ Infobox NCAA Athlete}} or {{ Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}. You can view the list at User:B/NCAA data. At the top is a list of article links so that you can use related changes to monitor vandalism and at the bottom is a raw list that you can copy/paste into your watchlist. If you are interested in monitoring college football player articles for libel, this isn't a complete list, but it's a useful start. -- B ( talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We've got quite a few articles/lists up for featured reviews right now, and support is requested to get these articles and lists to featured status.
For lists, there's the list of Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons.
For articles, there's a few.
In addition, 2007 Hawaiʻi Bowl was recently up for review, but failed its first featured article candidacy. I'd encourage everyone to visit these articles' candidacy pages and offer comments or support. Several of the editors of 2007 Hawaiʻi Bowl have requested assistance before they put it up for a second round of FAC. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
While debating at the current Thomas Wilcher AFD, there has been some discussion of setting a standard for notability to lessen the number of articles that need to be debated case-by-case at AFD. The most recent comments can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Amateur_athletes. Is there any interest in setting some standards to lessen case-by-case issues. I bring this to the fore now because although, I think the numerous active Michigan Football editors can save all interesting articles for their program, I am not so sure that all schools could do so in the face of a frenzy of AFD conservatives. Among the points I make at the link I sent you to is the following:
Comments welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
All American Football League is starting up. Since most (all?) of the players will be college players (since they must have a degree), should this be a part of WP:CFB? My thought is no, since there could be former NFL players as well, and really it should perhaps have their own WikiProject. I'd be fine with supporting them in starting up, but since they are a professional (think minor, AAA) league, they have more in common with the NFL than CFB. At the least, information about players and coaches involved could certainly be used incorporated into articles. MECU≈ talk 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to state publicly that I've awarded the CFB Barnstar to TonyTheTiger for his outstanding contributions to Michigan Wolverines football articles, and in particular the striking number of GA and (hopefully soon) FA contributions to the project. Keep up the great work, Tony! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been having some trouble getting comments on some football-related FACs, and I know other writers have had that same problem in the past. Would it be worthwhile to compile a list of editors who are willing to comment on football FACs regardless of subject? I know that I'm move than willing to coordinate the list, but it might be something that's nice to have. What do you all think? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(Lifted thread from
User talk:Nmajdan)
Nmajdan, It makes sense that you are adding the College football games category to the Rose Bowl article. However, that category has a subcategory of Rose Bowl where all the games are collected. Is there a way to have the category on the articles, but not have all the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Fiesta bowl games that have their own category cluttering up the list? Thanks,
Group29 (
talk)
15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a Wikipedia category for specific notable college football games. With all the bowl games being added, I recommend that some new categories be created: Orange Bowl games, Rose Bowl games, Fiesta Bowl games, etc. There are existing categories like Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl where games also appear, but these categories also have non game articles like stadiums, broadcasters and so forth. So 2008 Rose Bowl would appear in the both categories of Rose Bowl and Rose Bowl games. Rose Bowl games category becomes a sub category of college football games and perhaps bowl games. This is just a short synopsis to give the idea. Any further suggestions? Thanks, Group29 ( talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above image is used in numerous articles. It is a copyrighted logo. As such, it falls under WP:NFCC. Item 10c on that page states: The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. Right now, the image only has one rationale.-- Rockfang ( talk) 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A bot is getting ready to go through the list of unassessed articles and will tag any article with a stub template as a stub. So, if you come across any CFB-related articles that do not have a stub template, please add one. Even if its the generic {{ stub}} template, at least it will assess it for the project. The most common stubs for this project are {{ collegefootball-stub}} and {{ collegefootball-coach-stub}}.↔ NMajdan• talk 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above, a bot just went through and assessed a bunch of our articles. Looks like it assessed around 4,300 articles. We still have 1,500 left, but that is much more manageable than 5,800.↔ NMajdan• talk 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We've got an "FL" Classification for featured lists on the college football banner, but there's currently no way to display the number of these on the assessment page. Is there a way to fix that? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The user box denoting that a player's page is in the College Football project is out of shape, and no longer within the confines of a correctly structured wiki userbox. This is affecting ALL of the players' TALK pages. Search any player, and look at any TALK page to see what is going wrong. Please fix! 12Dorsa152 ( talk) 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to...
I want to get out in front of the article this year in order for it to not be a burden later. My goal is for the article to grow into a GA once there is enough content. Any suggestions on what to do up front now? CJC47 ( talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that Missouri is listed here, but I know there is this article 2008 Missouri Tigers football team. Does this count? Being new here, I wasn't going to edit this WikiProject's main page without an ok from some of the regular editors. Later, Rocket maniac RT 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of "team season" links to the Master Team Table, including add Central Florida & Western Kentucky to the table. Rocket maniac RT 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking throught this last year's bowls games and I realized that most of the articles don't list any statistics. And those that do, don't have a standard format. Shouldn't there be a standard format for bowl game statistics? If statistics are important enough to add, should one use the format list here Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format? or is there a different idea? Any thoughts and ideas? Rocket maniac RT 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If there is a place to announce FACs for this project, I can not find it. Tyrone Wheatley may be the first college football player bio and first modern NFL player bio to achieve FA according to talk page project tags. Only Jim Thorpe is an FA currently. Please come comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind everyone that this FAC is still going on. The article has improved greatly since it was first nominated, but there's still room for people to check it out, comment, support, or suggest improvements. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Are logos on season articles absolutely necessary? They seem to be just mere decoration and don't add anything to the article. If a reader doesn't know how a certain team's logo looks like, they can go to the team's parent article. I realize that some teams may not mind the usage of their logos here, but this is a free encyclopedia. WP:NCC says we are to "produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." Logos are not necessary when chronicling a certain season. Besides, all the professional sport articles don't use logos on their season pages - see 2007 New York Giants season, 2007-08 Boston Celtics season, 2007 Boston Red Sox season, 2007-08 New Jersey Devils season, and Chelsea F.C. season 2007-08. Also refer to the centralized discussion here. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The logos are helpful to the reader, and they do absolutely no harm at all. Hence, we should use them on all applicable articles. Johntex\ talk 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to addressing the points above, please tell me why every other sports article (as shown above) does not add a logo to the season infobox, whereas college football articles do. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly get really tired of this discussion. Seems like I've been involved in so many of these exact same arguments since I joined. The Foundation would make this wiki work a lot smoother if they came out and set guidelines rather than waiting for a "community consensus" which has shown itself on numerous occasions is not going to happen.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was actually wondering why the other sports articles don't add logos to their infoboxes. It seemed to be the standard of Wikipedia since ALL of them (except college football and basketball) do not include the logo in the season infobox. Anyhow, enough with that. Here's another issue: Universities don't allow the use of their logos without their permission. For example, the UT website states this. I have contacted the associate athletic director to ask whether the logo may be used across our articles. I am waiting for his response and will post it here once I receive it. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have been going through the edit histories of the other sport season infoboxes, just to read the rationale of editors when they removed the logo/image parameter. One user cited WP:NONFREE criterion No. 9, which this page also covers. Part of the fine print says "From the Non-free content criteria Policy, Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), portals, user pages, categories, Help, MediaWiki, or the Project namespace." It also adds "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy.". There has been no broad consensus on the use of team logos on season infoboxes, especially not in the centralized discussion I linked to above. Also note I cited Wikipedia policy. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{{image|FairUseLogo.png}}}
but you can have {{{image|FreeUseImage.png}}}
and then define |image=
in the actual transclusion of the template. Does that make sense? On a side note, it seems with all this energy you're putting in to this, it would be better spent on actually improving the content of some articles.↔
NMajdan•
talk
22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to SatyrBot ( talk · contribs), we now have a to-do list that will be updated once a week. There is a short version and a long version. I have taken the liberty of adding the short version to our to do list at the top of this talk page and a link to the full version to our navigation sidebar. Both will be updated everything Thursday. Feel free to add the short version (or long version if so inclined) to your own talk page.↔ NMajdan• talk 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I see its already working. Great work Mecu!↔ NMajdan• talk 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a policy for the name of the school to use in articles and specifically the "coach's box" ??
EXAMPLE: Ralph Graham was a head coach at the "University of Wichita" which later became Wichita State University -- same school, just the name changed. A user is going through (making good faith edits, I might add) changing the school name based on the time period.
Hey, it's a very strong attention to detail, that's for sure--and I'm proud of the user for thinking that way! But... does it help or hinder our project?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem... that's what the editor was doing, I just wanted to get feedback from everyone else. It looks confusing to me, but if I'm the only one who thinks so then let's do it that way!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered Georgia Bulldogs football team (future Schedules). I know that schedules are published for years into the future, I'm not certain there's a place for Wikipedia for this though. While not a crystal ball (though it does include some wishy-washy terms like "presumably"), is there really enough external discussion to justify such an article? There are articles published in papers that are like "Colorado signs home and home with X fo 2014 and 2016." Thinking of my beloved Colorado Buffs, their schedule with exact dates (but not time) and locations (home/away) is published and nearly complete through 2015-16 (a few TBA's exist). If someone wanted to, they could use the CFB schedule template and flesh out most of the data and be that much further ahead. Anyways, anyone else have any ideas if we should keep or support or squash such articles? (The S in Schedules should be lower case, if anyone jumps in and makes their own article.) Require CFB template use? MECU≈ talk 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what exactly qualifies a high school football coach to get a Wikipedia article. I mean, where's that thin line the separates those HS coaches that are notable, from those who are not? I think you all would agree with me that John McKissick, Gordon Wood, Paul Tyson, and Bob Ladouceur each deserve an article. But who else? Guys like Chuck Moser, who established records for longest winning streak and things like that? Or coaches like Art Briles, Todd Dodge, and Alan Weddell (their respective collegiate coaching careers aside), that won multiple state titles? What exactly qualifies a high school coach for being notable? -- Bender235 ( talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, we shouldn't worry too much about it. It's not part of the project. Don't go looking for trouble, I always say just said for the first time.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I somehow missed the discussion when we decided to replace
{{Infobox NCAA Athlete}}
with
{{Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}
. Could someone help me out? --
Bender235 (
talk)
23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Today, I created the page 2008 USF Bulls football team, but apparently, it is not "notable" enough. Can someone please help a Wiki-n00b? Please keep in mind that it is a work in progress and I will add to it (as well as some people I know from a forum) when I get more time. Thanks! crambone ( talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how do I move the article from one to another? Isn't that the Wikipedia equivalent of "double-posting"? hah, thanks. crambone ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was me. I am sorry! I tried to do it the "right way", and I hope I didn't mess anything up too bad. Thank you for helping me!!! crambone ( talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I know I have not read every article we have on a team season, so perhaps this has been done before. However, this is a "first" for any football article I've worked on so I thought I would share with the project. Thanks to many kind photogs on both Wikipedia and Flickr, we have managed to collect at least one photograph for every game during the 2007 Texas Longhorn football team. There are too many for the season article, in fact, so the spillover is at Commons. [11]
I've nominated the WP article for GA so we'll see how that goes. As always, feedback is welcome! Johntex\ talk 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I just went though and assessed about 60 or so articles (i'll do more later). A lot of them were bowl articles and i realized how much work this project has to do with bowl articles. A lot of the articles didn't have an infobox or didn't even have a lead sentence it just went into talking about the game not even really saying what it was. I just wanted to point that out. Hatmatbbat10 Talk to me 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Semi-pro football to focus on those articles which specifically deal with content related to semi-pro football leagues and teams. Anyone interested in working in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
On the assessment page, there's no place in the "scorebox" to indicate the number of FL-class articles in the project. Is there another box we could use? Right now, the only indicator of FL-class CFB articles is on the list on the front page of the project, and I use the assessment box for that information. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've recently added the following team coaches
please review and consider merging if you recognize any of the coaches! use the coach navbox at the bottom of each page and review each coach that has been added-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch concerning the notability of a coach. It appears that the person who started the discussion has a severe bias against sports and football.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Florida Gators Barnstar | ||
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators. |
I've got an idea to improve the rankings pages. A reader could select to show lines that connect a team from week to week, making it easier to show how a team progressed. So, if they wanted to see LSU, they click the LSU check box and the lines appear that connect their ranking on that table for the week. They can show all 25+ teams if they wanted, or just one. I did an example which I did in GIMP which you can see at http://www.bcsfanpoll.com/lines.png (270k). Again, although I show several teams being displayed, the user would be selecting how many to show at one. So here's the problem: The best way I can figure to add this is via JavaScript and/or a Wikipedia:Gadgets, and I don't know JavaScript. So, firstly, would something like this be useful? Would you use something like it? Secondly, can anyone help me create this and/or create this by themselves? My thought is the JavaScript would have to parse all the ranking content and store the info in arrays and then be able to draw the lines on the table as appropriate (using the hex color code for the team). I don't think this is any small undertaking and am not sure of the usefulness, especially if people have to enable to feature to be used or include it in their monobook. I would prefer it to be available for all readers, regardless of account status. I'd appreciate any feedback and certainly help. MECU≈ talk 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of lovely acronyms here. Anyway, I've thrown 2005 ACC Championship Game up for FAC review, but have had a hard time getting anyone to review it. If you've got a moment, could you just click the link, review the article, and leave a few comments? Thanks. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It has come up, but never to significant consensus. I am fine with keeping the same qualification, however I think it really it should be noted that we're talking about 1936+. The lack of any qualification in the infobox keeps causing confusion with well-meaning editors. I'm sure I'm not the only one running into editors coming in to change something they genuinely believe should be a different number; when I explain that its wire titles, or titles post-1936, they sometimes reply "well why doesn't it say so?" and I really have no excuse other than "well, some people came to an agreement a while ago that I only found out about after it happened". I have a simple proposal, why don't we change the line describing national titles in Template talk:NCAAFootballSchool {{!}} '''National titles''' to {{!}} '''[[NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship#Most_Poll_Era_National_Championships|Wire]] National titles'''; the link to Most Poll Era National Championships in the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article makes sense, identifies where the numbers are coming from, and would help cut down on these conflicts that continue to pop up as new users who have no idea that there was some discussion on the matter simply read "National Titles" and think "hey, I saw ESPN say they have x but that says y". I don't think this should be a controversial request, as (we all know) the NCAA doesn't award a national title and picking which titles consist of canon ( example) requires some qualification anyway, so why shouldn't we openly display our reasoning? I checked and I don't think the word "wire" makes the infobox look odd. -- Bobak ( talk) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MECU that it would be problematic to have more than one line on nat'l titles in the infobox, and that any confusion between claimed, consensus including pre-1936, and wire (probably the three most popular ways of gathering data) can be sorted out in the article text. I am fine with using Wire because its probably the clearest of the three (wire also takes into account the confusion of split titles), I just wanted to clarify the difference in the infobox. -- Bobak ( talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently 29 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject College football is to try to find time to review Kenwyne Jones and Ion Croitoru. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have started discussion at Talk:List of NAIA football programs in response to the addition of a coaches column to this article. Commentary and feedback would appreciated. Gwguffey ( talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, gang... need some input and discussion. Please come to Talk:List of NAIA football programs to assist with a discussion on a coach's list, team list, and working on something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable for NAIA, Div III, Div II, and Div I FCS.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, one of WikiProject homeschooling's nominations was Tim Tebow. Well, I was wondering that, if it passes, we could sort of work together with them to improve the article. Let me know what you think. K im u 21:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find a comprehensive page on notability for our project, so I started a page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability. Please, please, please--everyone jump in and let's get this hammered out! I think this is really important to our project.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
College football Project‑class | |||||||
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've come here before when I've had an issue before and I am having a minor one again and would like to know what those here think. A user called Baseball_Bugs edited the Minnesota Golden Gophers football page on December 12th - his edit changed the phrase "They compete in NCAA Division I-A and the Big Ten Conference" by replacing the word "compete" with "play". His edit comment was "Let's not overstate the situation" - an obvious joke about how bad of a season the Gophers had last year. Well, I changed it back. He then did it again, commenting "The do play in the Big 10. Saying they 'compete' is POV-pushing, especially for a team that finished 1-11" which is another joke. And the argument that using the word "compete" is an NPOV issue is completely ridiculous. Another user changed it back to "compete". Well, Baseball_Bugs has persisted in his quest to make the change and I have kept changing it back. I noticed that he has also started going to other pages to make similar changes such as Michigan Wolverines football - I think "compete" is a better term and is more accurate than "play" and was just wondering what opinions here are.
JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)I have tried talking to him on his user page but it hasn't helped. I suppose I'll have to start a discussion on the Gopher football page's talk page to try to get a consensus. Anyway, I'm just looking for input from other college football fans. Thanks! Gopherguy | Talk 15:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that if you were to talk to any head coach in the NCAA or NAIA or NJCAA that coaches football or any other sport, they would say that taking any team at all for granted is a very big mistake. "Compete" is the right word, you are correct and the other user is not.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
So then the question is whether competition implies intent or actual action. In this case, merely by having a football team, Minnesota is a competitor for the Big 10 title. The intent is there, and though they did not win, they still competed. Now, if they were the only team in the conference, there would have been no competition. They could have still played games -- but there would have been no competition. Intent defines competition. The end result does not define it. Is a football game still a football game if the score is 222-0? The NCAA thinks so, and so Georgia Tech is awarded a win over Cumberland. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. The dictionary definition of compete is "To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory." Whether or not one team was only able to put up a lackluster effort, they still competed. Merely showing up and playing qualifies as a competition. So far, I have not heard of a single editor who agrees with you. Therefore, I believe the article should reflect this apparent consensus.↔ NMajdan• talk 02:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, did this ever get ridiculous today! Bugs, I think you're wrong. "Play" implies the possibility that there is no victor or victory. "Compete" is much more clear that there will be a victor and a loser. And no, it's not a "marketing hype" term. The do a google search phrase "athletic competition" and see for yourself what you get! The words "competition" and "compete" are widely accepted among not only industry peers (in this case, college-level foootball) but also on those who report on in it in the media. It is by far the most accurate term.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"Bugs" -- you are being belligerent in my eyes--there is no place for name-calling in this forum. Please stop. If you have something constructive to add, please do so. But obviously this discussion is no longer anywhere near constructive.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Can something be done to stop this abusive user?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I am getting VERY IRRITATED at being accused of being on a one-man crusade. Read the various ways "compete" is used in this set of articles [4] before you bash my opinions further. The term "compete" can be used to mean "striving to win" (as you all want it to mean exclusively) and is VERY OFTEN used to mean "capable of winning". It ain't just me. And, FYI, I'm a Cubs fan, so I know from losing and not being competitive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of this "consensus" vote (7-1), the term "member of" more accurately and unambiguously describes the situation than "competes in". The continued insistence on using that ambiguous and hype-laden word, along with threats to somehow get me banned for refusing to back down, amounts to bullying on the part of at least some of those seven users. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If we're counting votes, then make it 8-1. If we're trying to arrive at a rationale in support of of the eight, I'd say it's simply that when two teams get together to play a formally sanctioned football game, they are competing. This is true whether or not one of the two teams has any reasonable hope of success in that competition. "Playing" without "competing" is called a scrimmage, or perhaps an exhibition. JohnInDC ( talk) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"The Golden Gophers football team is a member of the Big Ten" is clear, unambiguous, and factual.
"Compete" is asserted as meaning "striving to win" by dictionary definition, although many sports fans take it to mean "having a reasonable chance to win". Either way is good, in its usage in specific games or rivalries. "The Golden Gophers football team strives to win in the Big Ten" sounds like rah-rah, sis-boom-bah, media hype. How is that "encyclopedic"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Bugs has not made an effort to bring in an outside opinion, I have. I do want to resolve this situation and I think to best do that, we need the opinion of somebody outside this discussion and preferably with little knowledge of these articles. Only they can tell us if using compete the way we have is in any way confusing or POV.↔ NMajdan• talk 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion: I don't see what the problem is with "compete". It seems to be the more accurate term. Baseball Bugs point seems based on POV logic. BB, would you mind restating your position (in like 3 sentences or less?) Phyesalis ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinion
Bugs said he'd go with the outsider's assessment and end discussion of the point, so why do we continue to beat on it? It's all so, so - 2007. Surely we can find newer windmills at which to tilt. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
One new opinion: to say that a team competes in a division sounds a bit like they compete only in a division. I have no problem saying a team competes in the NFL or NCAA but I don't hear that the New York Jets compete in the AFC East because they also compete outside the AFC East. Food for thought. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The deletionists have zapped one of the two illustrations in Minnesota Golden Gophers football and are about to zap the other one. Good luck "competing" with the deletionists. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, bugs. What you need to do is realize that the consensus is against your idea. Right or wrong, that's the consensus. Wikipedia does not exist to make any one person 100% happy, but to build a consensus resource. (Dang, I just woke up from my Wikinap).-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You say that your goal is to be more clear, but it seems your only intent to ridicule the University of Minnesota's football team in light of their most recent season. Oh, and I have no idea how many hundreds or thousands of other readers had the same reaction as you and yet didn't bother raising the issue because they... well... didn't bother to ... raise... the ... issue...
...But if you want, I'd be willing to grant that thousands of people agreed with you but didn't think it was worth mentioning.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised by all the letters spilled on this topic. My opinion: "competes in" is synonymous with "plays in". The question of if they effectively compete/play is something else entirely. This shouldn't be wasting as much otherwise productive time as it is. Why not move on? -- Bobak ( talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not that we disagree with you, it's just that we don't care! And neither do the alleged thousands of others who saw the page and didn't think it was worth mentioning either. This argument has been dead so long it's decomposing...-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the USC football page words it this way, and I think this is a good model for the Big 10 football pages to follow: "The USC Trojans football program, established in 1888, is a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I-A and the Pacific Ten Conference (Pac-10) under head coach Pete Carroll." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
BB, Since my post I've been reading the feedback and throughout the discussion something always bothered me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until someone mentioned it above. The football teams are not "members" of a conference, but the school is. Accordingly, there shouldn't be any mention as the team belonging to a certain conference, but that the school is a member of the conference. A "team" or individual can "compete" in any venue it chooses to compete, but conference affiliations are between schools, not football teams. Accordingly, I support the general consensus of this subset of the Wikipedia community that "compete" is an appropriate word choice.
Additionally, please read WP:CONSENSUS. It states that a vote, while not binding, does help establish a baseline for claiming consensus and shows where everyone stands. Furthermore, the general tone from the quantity of editors is that they don't support your opinion (as another editor stated, "right or wrong" is irrelevant...especially when one takes into account that an opinion about word choice cannot explicitly be "right" or "wrong"). I've been "outvoted" before and yielded to consensus. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal.
38-24 in the BCS championship, somewhat of an improvement on last year's 41-14 rout. If this is the best the Big Ten can do... if this is your idea of "competing"... maybe the Big Ten should give up football and take up something they know how to do. I'm thinking they could easily beat the likes of LSU and Florida in Competitive Snowplowing, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In order to clarify everyone's position, please state your support or opposition to the following statement:
I have warned Baseball Bugs that he is being destructive, that future such behavior could result in blocking, and that if he wishes to continue the matter that the proper venue should be RfC. [7] Johntex\ talk 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been going through and adding WP:CFB tags to the talk pages of college football articles that need them, and I've run across a few college mascot pages that aren't part of the Wikiproject. That brings up an interesting argument -- should mascots be included in this Wikiproject?
My initial thought is no. After all, they're not specific to football alone, and represent the entire athletic department and school, not just the football team. But we've also got two in our list of high-rank college football articles. So I ask you all -- should mascots be included in this wikiproject? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 02:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the portal asking for an image for 2007/1? It should be looking for 2008/1, which already exists. Can someone fix this? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that all the base team pages have the "®" automatically added to the end of the image. While most schools have registered their trademarks, there's always a possibility that a school might be ™ for whatever reason (especially if its new). I just tend to lean away from blanketing, sight unseen, any and every image with the "®". As a lawyer, I wouldn't do it unless I knew it was certain. -- Bobak ( talk) 22:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm confused. Yesterday, when I left, we had slightly over 4400 articles in this project. I get here today and we have nearly 9400? Where did these 5000 articles come from? I requested a both go through a list of 2000 articles and tag any that were not part of the project but a) I don't know if that was done yet and b) I was expecting maybe 20% of those 2000 to not be tagged. Does anybody have any clue where these 5000 came from?↔ NMajdan• talk 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess what might be the problem is how far do we want to go in terms of tagging. While tagging Vinny Testaverde makes perfect sense, given his role at Miami, is tagging Ken Clark (running back) necessary? That kind of stuff will apparently need to be decided. Wizardman 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could have restricted the bot to articles where the word "compete" appears. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
...I'm sure I'm missing some, plus I've completed several schools of coaches without pages for every coach (Kansas State, Kansas, Temple, etc). At an average of 20 coaches per school, that works out to be about 440 new articles from my work in small colleges. It's my fault!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Bill Stewart's page is brand new and could use some help. With some great editing work I think it would be a perfect candidate for "Did you know...?" on the Main Wikipedia page. I already added his entry to the "New College Football articles" on the main page. Please help is you can. Thanks! Seancp ( talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The page, Boston College Eagles football is in poor shape. I have been trying do make it better, but particular season's may help it, A Post of Each Season's Record, and a More In-Depth History. -- IAMTHEEGGMAN ( talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've made this comment to others in the past. I don't get this "attempt" wording. If this is a project, then it has an objective. It shouldn't be worded so tentatively. It should say "this project's objective is..." Keep in mind the following credos:
Template:WikiProject College football
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noted on the pages that the Bowl Championship Series contracts are up in 2010. However the location templates of the [[ BCS National Championship Game go on to 2018 on the pages of Louisiana Superdome, Dolphin Stadium, Rose Bowl, and University of Phoenix Stadium. With the possible addition of the Sugar Bowl being added to the rotation. Are those venues all confirmed for those years of the BCS. If they are not confirmed then they should be removed from those pages immediately. Sawblade05 ( talk to me | my wiki life) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on 2008 Iowa Hawkeyes football team for awhile now, but I've come across a question that I think should be brought up here. In the schedule, I linked the opposing teams to the university page, rather their respective 2008 season pages. I did this for the sake of not being repetitive, as the 2008 season pages will be linked in the game notes (or in my case, the season) section. I know I might be fretting about nothing, but I thought there should be at least some consensus in how I do this.
I was also wondering about the possibility of someone just going through the article just to give me things to improve on (such as NPOV issues) as we reach a "dead" period in college football. I'd very much appreciate any outside input on this article; I've pretty much been the only one working on it. Thanks in advance. CrdHwk ( talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What is our policy/Wikipedia policy on incredible short articles? I'm tempted to either prod or AfD articles that have no prose whatsoever such as 1999 Rose Bowl, 1894 Oregon Ducks football team, 1994 Oregon Ducks football team etc. Should we make it a rule that an article can not just contain a schedule or a result but must contain some form of prose? I'd even be more inclined to keep some of those season articles if they contain a bit more information like the coaching staff and roster. But in the current state of just a schedule, I think they should go. Any thoughts or should I go ahead and prod these types of articles? Going through the list of unassessed articles will probably yield many of these types of articles.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... when I view Vince DiFrancesca, I see there are two coach's navboxes--ISU and Western Ill... so when I view/edit the page for Coach DiFran, I see that Western's navbox is "LeathernecksCoach" -- but when I click on "edit" it takes me to "Template:MSUBearsCoach" ... can anyone repeat this and offer a solution?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
So apparently, there were a lot of articles in the college football categories not tagged with our banner. I'm using AWB to go through and add them to the project but I'll have to go back and add ratings when I can. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Check out Category:Unassessed college football articles for the list. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject College football|class=|importance=}}
) and for people, also add the Biography WikiProject Banner ({{WPBiography|sports-work-group=yes|living=|class=|priority=}}
).↔
NMajdan•
talk
14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Ok, some serious help is needed getting all our new articles tagged. The bot that assesses articles that already have an assessment from another project has ran, so all that is left is unassessed articles. Any help would be appreciated.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{WPBiography|sports-work-group=yes|class=|living=}}
), if the article has no references, add {{unreferenced}}
, and if the article is about a living person with no references, then add {{BLPsources}}
.↔
NMajdan•
talk
15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that if anyone gives out our CFB barnstar award, that they publicize the fact here. This would help increase the benefit of getting such an award and we can all pile-on our thanks and see some more of the good works going on around the project. MECU≈ talk 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey gang, I have a request for a bot. I've been doing lots of work on small college coaches and recently have found myself "filling in the blanks" for coaches that don't exist on major colleges. Example, I just made stub articles for all the missing coach articles for Iowa State University.
Anyway, it takes some manual work to do that because sometimes the artilces exist and need to be merged--other times I just copy up my standard layout stub article.
What I'd like is a BOT that can run through a template (like Iowa State's {{CyclonesCoach}} below) from my user page and hit every coach's talk page to put templates on the talk page
{{WPBiography|sports-work-group=yes|class=stub|living=}} {{WikiProject College football |class=stub |importance=low}}
Can anyone take that on??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We currently name our season articles 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. I believe this is mostly accurate (FBS stands for Football Bowl Subdivision, so is the football really necessary?). However, several articles have been created for prior seasons (see 1957 college football season through 1975 college football season). I was looking at the history of the NCAA from the NCAA website trying to figure out the best naming convention. Just having college football season brings in a lot of ambiguities. Should we rename these articles 1975 NCAA Division I football season and 1960 NCAA football season? It looks like the NCAA as we know it was formed in 1910 (might need to check around to be sure of this), so these articles, when they are created, would just be 19xx NCAA football season. In 1973, it split into NCAA Division I, II, and III. In 1978, the football side further split in Division I-A and I-AA (now FBS and FCS, respectively). I'm working on a new template and wanted to get input before getting too far: User:Nmajdan/Test. Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been some well-intentioned confusion over the naming conventions of the USC Trojans. Right now the college player infobox will only show the Trojans' colors if the "|school=" line reads "Southern California Trojans", a combination that's never used. Can we switch this to work with "USC Trojans" or simply "Southern California"? I can't figure out how that infobox works. I noticed this issue when working on Chilo Rachal, see this edit. -- Bobak ( talk) 22:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the simple question: to "(football coach)" or not to "(football coach)" ??
A Wikipedia user (or perhaps several) has been moving pages like Harold Elliott (football coach) to Harold Elliott. Traditionally it has made sense to me and others that we add the tag "(football coach)" or "(American football)" or some other identifier to the end of the name to avoid conflicts such as Harold Edward Elliott.
Naturally some coaches such as Knute Rockne and Amos Alonzo Stagg don't need the tag, and I'm not advocating going back through and putting it on everybody. I'm just opening a discussion to see if anyone objects to having a unique identifier on the page name.
Ideas??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recently come across some lists such as Green Bay Packers seasons and Chicago Bears seasons, and thought it would be a good idea to start one for my Hawkeyes. Well, I've gotten a decent start on it, but I can't figure out how to un-bold everything in the template. You can view the page here, and the template is just a quick scroll down. I've compared templates with the other pages but I can't find anything different about them. I would like to have just conference championships bolded with everything else in regular text. Any help is appreciated. If you know what's wrong and it won't take too long, go ahead and edit it. I wish I was more skilled in this department, because I actually just copied-and-pasted from the Packers article to get a start on it. Thanks in advance for any help. CrdHwk ( talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created two sample articles for early College Football All-America Teams. They are:
Before rolling out further into other years, I would be interested in any feedback that folks here might have. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons for featured list status. Please, if you have any time at all, I ask that you participate in the discussion here. Any and all votes/opinions are greatly appreciated. Thank you. CrdHwk ( talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD. This is a candidate whose debate will significantly affect WikiProject College Football. Please participate in the debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal if possible. Thanks. -- Thör hammer 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going through the list of unclassified CFB articles and doing some classifying, and I thought this would be a good time to bring up the topic of article classification. I'd suggest a series of guidelines to establish a default baseline for classifying articles, which can obviously be overwritten if there's some sort of extenuating circumstances.
This is what I've come up with so far:
These are just guidelines, and obviously there's going to be exceptions to the default importance. Something like the Michigan-Appalachian St. game would probably get mid/high importance during the 2007 season, but from the 2008 season onward, it'd probably drop to mid/low importance, depending on the aftereffects it caused.
Any thoughts? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 00:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent) Okay, then. Is there a downside to this? From what everyone's saying, no one uses it, it involves more work to keep it, it's easy to implement, and has no lasting implications. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have edited the banner, removing all references to importance ratings. This should slowly remove articles from Category:College football articles by importance. This can easily be reverted if, for some reason, we change our minds. However, I will wait a little while before starting the deletion of the categories.↔ NMajdan• talk 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The categories have cleared. Delete?↔ NMajdan• talk 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one seems to have objected, can someone archive this discussion and put a link to it on the discussion page? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:192.60.230.113 has been adding depth charts for 2008 to school football articles. This would purely be speculation and would not be allowed, after all, this is an encyclopedia. I have been reverting them, but stopped for a minute to see if there was any discussion on this project about that, which I see there is not. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I do not believe that these depth charts should be listed. Some of these players may not be in school next season due to either going into the draft or academic reasons. Also, this user has been listing projected incoming players which is definately speculation until after National signing day. -- Pparazorback ( talk) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the Wikiproject College football banner on the talk page for Fifth Down Game (1990). It's in the code, and it appears as if the syntax is correct, but Wikipedia isn't detecting the banner. It doesn't show up in the list of GA-class college football articles, and it doesn't show up when you expand the Wikiproject shell. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone help me expand the Brandon Saine article? If so, if you find anything about him that could go in, feel free to put it in his article (w/ ref.). Thanks. Burner0718 ( talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI to anyone interested, I have created a list of every page that transcludes {{ Infobox NCAA Athlete}} or {{ Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}. You can view the list at User:B/NCAA data. At the top is a list of article links so that you can use related changes to monitor vandalism and at the bottom is a raw list that you can copy/paste into your watchlist. If you are interested in monitoring college football player articles for libel, this isn't a complete list, but it's a useful start. -- B ( talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We've got quite a few articles/lists up for featured reviews right now, and support is requested to get these articles and lists to featured status.
For lists, there's the list of Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons.
For articles, there's a few.
In addition, 2007 Hawaiʻi Bowl was recently up for review, but failed its first featured article candidacy. I'd encourage everyone to visit these articles' candidacy pages and offer comments or support. Several of the editors of 2007 Hawaiʻi Bowl have requested assistance before they put it up for a second round of FAC. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
While debating at the current Thomas Wilcher AFD, there has been some discussion of setting a standard for notability to lessen the number of articles that need to be debated case-by-case at AFD. The most recent comments can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Amateur_athletes. Is there any interest in setting some standards to lessen case-by-case issues. I bring this to the fore now because although, I think the numerous active Michigan Football editors can save all interesting articles for their program, I am not so sure that all schools could do so in the face of a frenzy of AFD conservatives. Among the points I make at the link I sent you to is the following:
Comments welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
All American Football League is starting up. Since most (all?) of the players will be college players (since they must have a degree), should this be a part of WP:CFB? My thought is no, since there could be former NFL players as well, and really it should perhaps have their own WikiProject. I'd be fine with supporting them in starting up, but since they are a professional (think minor, AAA) league, they have more in common with the NFL than CFB. At the least, information about players and coaches involved could certainly be used incorporated into articles. MECU≈ talk 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to state publicly that I've awarded the CFB Barnstar to TonyTheTiger for his outstanding contributions to Michigan Wolverines football articles, and in particular the striking number of GA and (hopefully soon) FA contributions to the project. Keep up the great work, Tony! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been having some trouble getting comments on some football-related FACs, and I know other writers have had that same problem in the past. Would it be worthwhile to compile a list of editors who are willing to comment on football FACs regardless of subject? I know that I'm move than willing to coordinate the list, but it might be something that's nice to have. What do you all think? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
(Lifted thread from
User talk:Nmajdan)
Nmajdan, It makes sense that you are adding the College football games category to the Rose Bowl article. However, that category has a subcategory of Rose Bowl where all the games are collected. Is there a way to have the category on the articles, but not have all the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Fiesta bowl games that have their own category cluttering up the list? Thanks,
Group29 (
talk)
15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a Wikipedia category for specific notable college football games. With all the bowl games being added, I recommend that some new categories be created: Orange Bowl games, Rose Bowl games, Fiesta Bowl games, etc. There are existing categories like Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl where games also appear, but these categories also have non game articles like stadiums, broadcasters and so forth. So 2008 Rose Bowl would appear in the both categories of Rose Bowl and Rose Bowl games. Rose Bowl games category becomes a sub category of college football games and perhaps bowl games. This is just a short synopsis to give the idea. Any further suggestions? Thanks, Group29 ( talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above image is used in numerous articles. It is a copyrighted logo. As such, it falls under WP:NFCC. Item 10c on that page states: The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. Right now, the image only has one rationale.-- Rockfang ( talk) 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A bot is getting ready to go through the list of unassessed articles and will tag any article with a stub template as a stub. So, if you come across any CFB-related articles that do not have a stub template, please add one. Even if its the generic {{ stub}} template, at least it will assess it for the project. The most common stubs for this project are {{ collegefootball-stub}} and {{ collegefootball-coach-stub}}.↔ NMajdan• talk 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above, a bot just went through and assessed a bunch of our articles. Looks like it assessed around 4,300 articles. We still have 1,500 left, but that is much more manageable than 5,800.↔ NMajdan• talk 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We've got an "FL" Classification for featured lists on the college football banner, but there's currently no way to display the number of these on the assessment page. Is there a way to fix that? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The user box denoting that a player's page is in the College Football project is out of shape, and no longer within the confines of a correctly structured wiki userbox. This is affecting ALL of the players' TALK pages. Search any player, and look at any TALK page to see what is going wrong. Please fix! 12Dorsa152 ( talk) 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to...
I want to get out in front of the article this year in order for it to not be a burden later. My goal is for the article to grow into a GA once there is enough content. Any suggestions on what to do up front now? CJC47 ( talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that Missouri is listed here, but I know there is this article 2008 Missouri Tigers football team. Does this count? Being new here, I wasn't going to edit this WikiProject's main page without an ok from some of the regular editors. Later, Rocket maniac RT 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of "team season" links to the Master Team Table, including add Central Florida & Western Kentucky to the table. Rocket maniac RT 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I was looking throught this last year's bowls games and I realized that most of the articles don't list any statistics. And those that do, don't have a standard format. Shouldn't there be a standard format for bowl game statistics? If statistics are important enough to add, should one use the format list here Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format? or is there a different idea? Any thoughts and ideas? Rocket maniac RT 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If there is a place to announce FACs for this project, I can not find it. Tyrone Wheatley may be the first college football player bio and first modern NFL player bio to achieve FA according to talk page project tags. Only Jim Thorpe is an FA currently. Please come comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind everyone that this FAC is still going on. The article has improved greatly since it was first nominated, but there's still room for people to check it out, comment, support, or suggest improvements. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Are logos on season articles absolutely necessary? They seem to be just mere decoration and don't add anything to the article. If a reader doesn't know how a certain team's logo looks like, they can go to the team's parent article. I realize that some teams may not mind the usage of their logos here, but this is a free encyclopedia. WP:NCC says we are to "produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." Logos are not necessary when chronicling a certain season. Besides, all the professional sport articles don't use logos on their season pages - see 2007 New York Giants season, 2007-08 Boston Celtics season, 2007 Boston Red Sox season, 2007-08 New Jersey Devils season, and Chelsea F.C. season 2007-08. Also refer to the centralized discussion here. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The logos are helpful to the reader, and they do absolutely no harm at all. Hence, we should use them on all applicable articles. Johntex\ talk 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to addressing the points above, please tell me why every other sports article (as shown above) does not add a logo to the season infobox, whereas college football articles do. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly get really tired of this discussion. Seems like I've been involved in so many of these exact same arguments since I joined. The Foundation would make this wiki work a lot smoother if they came out and set guidelines rather than waiting for a "community consensus" which has shown itself on numerous occasions is not going to happen.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I was actually wondering why the other sports articles don't add logos to their infoboxes. It seemed to be the standard of Wikipedia since ALL of them (except college football and basketball) do not include the logo in the season infobox. Anyhow, enough with that. Here's another issue: Universities don't allow the use of their logos without their permission. For example, the UT website states this. I have contacted the associate athletic director to ask whether the logo may be used across our articles. I am waiting for his response and will post it here once I receive it. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have been going through the edit histories of the other sport season infoboxes, just to read the rationale of editors when they removed the logo/image parameter. One user cited WP:NONFREE criterion No. 9, which this page also covers. Part of the fine print says "From the Non-free content criteria Policy, Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), portals, user pages, categories, Help, MediaWiki, or the Project namespace." It also adds "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy.". There has been no broad consensus on the use of team logos on season infoboxes, especially not in the centralized discussion I linked to above. Also note I cited Wikipedia policy. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{{image|FairUseLogo.png}}}
but you can have {{{image|FreeUseImage.png}}}
and then define |image=
in the actual transclusion of the template. Does that make sense? On a side note, it seems with all this energy you're putting in to this, it would be better spent on actually improving the content of some articles.↔
NMajdan•
talk
22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to SatyrBot ( talk · contribs), we now have a to-do list that will be updated once a week. There is a short version and a long version. I have taken the liberty of adding the short version to our to do list at the top of this talk page and a link to the full version to our navigation sidebar. Both will be updated everything Thursday. Feel free to add the short version (or long version if so inclined) to your own talk page.↔ NMajdan• talk 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I see its already working. Great work Mecu!↔ NMajdan• talk 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a policy for the name of the school to use in articles and specifically the "coach's box" ??
EXAMPLE: Ralph Graham was a head coach at the "University of Wichita" which later became Wichita State University -- same school, just the name changed. A user is going through (making good faith edits, I might add) changing the school name based on the time period.
Hey, it's a very strong attention to detail, that's for sure--and I'm proud of the user for thinking that way! But... does it help or hinder our project?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem... that's what the editor was doing, I just wanted to get feedback from everyone else. It looks confusing to me, but if I'm the only one who thinks so then let's do it that way!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered Georgia Bulldogs football team (future Schedules). I know that schedules are published for years into the future, I'm not certain there's a place for Wikipedia for this though. While not a crystal ball (though it does include some wishy-washy terms like "presumably"), is there really enough external discussion to justify such an article? There are articles published in papers that are like "Colorado signs home and home with X fo 2014 and 2016." Thinking of my beloved Colorado Buffs, their schedule with exact dates (but not time) and locations (home/away) is published and nearly complete through 2015-16 (a few TBA's exist). If someone wanted to, they could use the CFB schedule template and flesh out most of the data and be that much further ahead. Anyways, anyone else have any ideas if we should keep or support or squash such articles? (The S in Schedules should be lower case, if anyone jumps in and makes their own article.) Require CFB template use? MECU≈ talk 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what exactly qualifies a high school football coach to get a Wikipedia article. I mean, where's that thin line the separates those HS coaches that are notable, from those who are not? I think you all would agree with me that John McKissick, Gordon Wood, Paul Tyson, and Bob Ladouceur each deserve an article. But who else? Guys like Chuck Moser, who established records for longest winning streak and things like that? Or coaches like Art Briles, Todd Dodge, and Alan Weddell (their respective collegiate coaching careers aside), that won multiple state titles? What exactly qualifies a high school coach for being notable? -- Bender235 ( talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, we shouldn't worry too much about it. It's not part of the project. Don't go looking for trouble, I always say just said for the first time.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I somehow missed the discussion when we decided to replace
{{Infobox NCAA Athlete}}
with
{{Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}
. Could someone help me out? --
Bender235 (
talk)
23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Today, I created the page 2008 USF Bulls football team, but apparently, it is not "notable" enough. Can someone please help a Wiki-n00b? Please keep in mind that it is a work in progress and I will add to it (as well as some people I know from a forum) when I get more time. Thanks! crambone ( talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how do I move the article from one to another? Isn't that the Wikipedia equivalent of "double-posting"? hah, thanks. crambone ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was me. I am sorry! I tried to do it the "right way", and I hope I didn't mess anything up too bad. Thank you for helping me!!! crambone ( talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I know I have not read every article we have on a team season, so perhaps this has been done before. However, this is a "first" for any football article I've worked on so I thought I would share with the project. Thanks to many kind photogs on both Wikipedia and Flickr, we have managed to collect at least one photograph for every game during the 2007 Texas Longhorn football team. There are too many for the season article, in fact, so the spillover is at Commons. [11]
I've nominated the WP article for GA so we'll see how that goes. As always, feedback is welcome! Johntex\ talk 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I just went though and assessed about 60 or so articles (i'll do more later). A lot of them were bowl articles and i realized how much work this project has to do with bowl articles. A lot of the articles didn't have an infobox or didn't even have a lead sentence it just went into talking about the game not even really saying what it was. I just wanted to point that out. Hatmatbbat10 Talk to me 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Semi-pro football to focus on those articles which specifically deal with content related to semi-pro football leagues and teams. Anyone interested in working in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
On the assessment page, there's no place in the "scorebox" to indicate the number of FL-class articles in the project. Is there another box we could use? Right now, the only indicator of FL-class CFB articles is on the list on the front page of the project, and I use the assessment box for that information. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've recently added the following team coaches
please review and consider merging if you recognize any of the coaches! use the coach navbox at the bottom of each page and review each coach that has been added-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch concerning the notability of a coach. It appears that the person who started the discussion has a severe bias against sports and football.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Florida Gators Barnstar | ||
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators. |
I've got an idea to improve the rankings pages. A reader could select to show lines that connect a team from week to week, making it easier to show how a team progressed. So, if they wanted to see LSU, they click the LSU check box and the lines appear that connect their ranking on that table for the week. They can show all 25+ teams if they wanted, or just one. I did an example which I did in GIMP which you can see at http://www.bcsfanpoll.com/lines.png (270k). Again, although I show several teams being displayed, the user would be selecting how many to show at one. So here's the problem: The best way I can figure to add this is via JavaScript and/or a Wikipedia:Gadgets, and I don't know JavaScript. So, firstly, would something like this be useful? Would you use something like it? Secondly, can anyone help me create this and/or create this by themselves? My thought is the JavaScript would have to parse all the ranking content and store the info in arrays and then be able to draw the lines on the table as appropriate (using the hex color code for the team). I don't think this is any small undertaking and am not sure of the usefulness, especially if people have to enable to feature to be used or include it in their monobook. I would prefer it to be available for all readers, regardless of account status. I'd appreciate any feedback and certainly help. MECU≈ talk 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of lovely acronyms here. Anyway, I've thrown 2005 ACC Championship Game up for FAC review, but have had a hard time getting anyone to review it. If you've got a moment, could you just click the link, review the article, and leave a few comments? Thanks. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 09:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It has come up, but never to significant consensus. I am fine with keeping the same qualification, however I think it really it should be noted that we're talking about 1936+. The lack of any qualification in the infobox keeps causing confusion with well-meaning editors. I'm sure I'm not the only one running into editors coming in to change something they genuinely believe should be a different number; when I explain that its wire titles, or titles post-1936, they sometimes reply "well why doesn't it say so?" and I really have no excuse other than "well, some people came to an agreement a while ago that I only found out about after it happened". I have a simple proposal, why don't we change the line describing national titles in Template talk:NCAAFootballSchool {{!}} '''National titles''' to {{!}} '''[[NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship#Most_Poll_Era_National_Championships|Wire]] National titles'''; the link to Most Poll Era National Championships in the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article makes sense, identifies where the numbers are coming from, and would help cut down on these conflicts that continue to pop up as new users who have no idea that there was some discussion on the matter simply read "National Titles" and think "hey, I saw ESPN say they have x but that says y". I don't think this should be a controversial request, as (we all know) the NCAA doesn't award a national title and picking which titles consist of canon ( example) requires some qualification anyway, so why shouldn't we openly display our reasoning? I checked and I don't think the word "wire" makes the infobox look odd. -- Bobak ( talk) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MECU that it would be problematic to have more than one line on nat'l titles in the infobox, and that any confusion between claimed, consensus including pre-1936, and wire (probably the three most popular ways of gathering data) can be sorted out in the article text. I am fine with using Wire because its probably the clearest of the three (wire also takes into account the confusion of split titles), I just wanted to clarify the difference in the infobox. -- Bobak ( talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently 29 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject College football is to try to find time to review Kenwyne Jones and Ion Croitoru. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have started discussion at Talk:List of NAIA football programs in response to the addition of a coaches column to this article. Commentary and feedback would appreciated. Gwguffey ( talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, gang... need some input and discussion. Please come to Talk:List of NAIA football programs to assist with a discussion on a coach's list, team list, and working on something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable for NAIA, Div III, Div II, and Div I FCS.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, one of WikiProject homeschooling's nominations was Tim Tebow. Well, I was wondering that, if it passes, we could sort of work together with them to improve the article. Let me know what you think. K im u 21:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find a comprehensive page on notability for our project, so I started a page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability. Please, please, please--everyone jump in and let's get this hammered out! I think this is really important to our project.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)