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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi everyone, I'm trying to add a section in the infobox to include a diagram of the current team uniform, similar to those found on any NFL franchise article. I've added the template from the NFL franchise infobox to the college football infobox, currently as invisible text, and have been tinkering with it, but can't seem to make it work. If anyone can help me out, I'd appreciate it. CH52584 ( talk) 02:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I need further clarification regarding this article title. Everyone from this project is invited to comment. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
We've made a lot of progress in filling in the historic All-America Teams dating back to the 19th Century. Still a few more to go. The lists for each year show a number of consensus All-American players who do not even have stubs. I've been creating articles on some as time permits, and encourage anyone else with time available to work on this as well. Template below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 ( talk • contribs)
Any input into this template? Contemplating expanding it to teams or players, depending on feedback. – LATICS talk 07:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi where can I find old player statistics? The guy in my article played for Michigan from 1969-1971. Is there a site with his stats? Please help me improve this article. Thanks. TomCat4680 ( talk) 06:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. can someone fix Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer so it doesn't show gobly goop next to his position? TomCat4680 ( talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, there is a list of articles to be reassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. This system requires that an editor put the article in this list, and that somebody else assess the article and modify the list to reflect the reassessment. In my opinion, there is a better way to do this.
Over at WP:UTSH, we have a hook/note in the project banner that allows you to flag an article for reassessment, simply by setting a parameter on the talk page "reassess=yes". This puts the article in a category. For example, on WP:UTSH, that category is Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing reassessment. We could do something similar here, like Category:College football articles needing reassessment. Then, to request an assessment, simply set "reassess=yes" to flag it, and then an editor can assess the article, leave a comment, and clear the reassessment flag. Might be an easier way to keep the list clean, and would only require a minor edit to the banner template. What do you guys think?
PS: I've demoed a version of the updated banner and a test case in the sandbox. De Fault Ryan 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the right place to ask for help, since it doesn't deal with content, but since it is a college football page, I will ask here. On Georgia Bulldogs football I have noticed two formatting problems. The first is that the main infobox is overlapping some of the introduction. The other is that the infobox and/or images has created a large gap in the first section (History). I thought about tinkering with it, but I would just be wasting my time. If anyone could help, please do. If you think I should take this request to a more general help page, let me know. Thanks! Brinkley32 ( talk) 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a project sub-page showing college football related hooks that have been featured on the Main Page as part of the "Did you know..." feature. It's at: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/DYK. Any thoughts on how to improve it or link it to other project pages/templates? Cbl62 ( talk) 06:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute between User:Yankees10 and me, so I'm asking you guys for some additional opionions. Do you think it is useful to have certain quotes (by renowned football experts) highlighted via Template:Cquote in players' articles, like here or here? I definitely think it is, but Yankees10 dissents. So what do you think? -- bender235 ( talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
What exactly makes this quote any more important than any other quote? And again you should leave this at WP:NFL considering Aaron Curry is no longer a college football player-- Yankees10 13:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin do something to halt disruptive edits by an IP user, starting 157.182.224.###. The editor has repeatedly edited articles that link to WVU Mountaineers football articles – see the following links with final IP #s included: here (.216), here (.125), here (.120), and here (.88). The edits change proper formatting and wikilinking & references to WVU-related articles into ones that this user apparently prefers. I've had to revert them increasingly on Pitt articles in the last few weeks. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 16:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just found Template:The Ivy League which duplicates the older Template:Ivy League Dougweller ( talk) 08:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Over the last two or so weeks I was able to assess little over two hundred articles. In the process I was able to find one GA, Germany Schulz, and one FA, Gerald Ford. Since it is the off season I wonder if anyone is interested in stating a drive to get rid of back log of unassessed college football articles? Right now we have about 1400. I figured if we can get 14 people to do 100 articles in the next month. 09er ( talk) 15:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
So far so good - nearly have the unassessed backlog down below 1000! Keep up the good work everybody. This will be a lot easier to mantain once we finally clear the backlog.
De
Fault
Ryan
19:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got an bot request to automatically scan the whole unassessed category, looking for articles that have already been assessed by other projects, and assess them to match the other assessments. I imagine it should go through tonight or tomorrow and it should be able to check a bunch off the list automatically. For now, try to focus on articles that are unlikely to be rated in another project. De Fault Ryan 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the bot is done now. Final tally is it got the backlog down to 483. Nice! Now it won't take too long at all to finish off the rest. De Fault Ryan 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask for someone from the Wikiproject to collaborate with me on the article about J. C. Watts by helping with football content. It is is pretty close to GA, but an ardent football fan quickfailed it recently for not having enough football coverage. The article falls in the scope of this Wikiproject and I would be very glad if someone contribued. Thank you! Hekerui ( talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned a year ago that there are two player infobox templates ({{ Infobox NCAA Athlete}} and {{ Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}) but not a single recommendation which one to use. Could we please decide that one here? I'm prefering the latter, since it looks similar to {{ Infobox NFLactive}}, which is only helpful to Wikipedia users. -- bender235 ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
With the recent changes to Template:NCAAFootballSchool to allow for the uniform images to be displayed, the uniform field (and some stray raw code) will still show up if there isn't anything entered for it (see, for example, George Washington Colonials football). Any chance someone with better template knowledge than me can fix this problem by making the uniform field conditional? Strikehold ( talk) 12:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion 0422 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Since there is already a page for rankings of FBS teams for the upcoming season, I was wondering if we should add a rankings page for the FCS teams as well? Music+mas ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This article only lists what conferences television networks are affiliated with through television contracts. I was wondering if it would be better to change this. For example, have sections for each conference and within these sections give more specific and detailed information about the television contracts these conferences have. There's more specific and detailed information would include something like the number of games a certain television network is contracted to broadcast. Or if there is not a set number, the details of the contract could be written down in the sections. I think this would improve the quality of the article. Music+mas ( talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed there are a lot of articles out there that are within the scope of this project, but aren't tagged with the project banner and therefore are off the radar for assessment, improvement, etc. This is especially true for articles on players. I just went through the Category:Boise State Broncos football players and found that a full 33% (15 of 45) of articles weren't tagged.
A partial solution I can think of is to write a script for a bot to search for articles within certain categories (e.g. Category:Boston College Eagles football players) and tag their talk pages with the CFB banner if necessary. I've noticed ListasBot has been doing something similar to a lot of articles lately; taking lifetime information from the mainspace and tagging the talk space with it.
I don't know how to actually write the script to do that, but thought I'd bring it up if someone with the knowhow wanted to give it a shot. Strikehold ( talk) 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The article Ole Miss Rebels football has been identified as a copyright problem and will likely need to be reverted quite some ways if it is not cleaned (or if it cannot be verified that the source text is free for reuse). I am not a good candidate for revising football related articles, I'm afraid, as I am extremely unfamiliar with the sport. Might any of the participants of your project be available to help out? The article has been blanked per process and listed under today's WP:CP listings, which means it does not come ripe for admin closure for 7+1 days. Your assistance would be vastly appreciated. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed TCF Bank Stadium for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This player passed notability already, based off an exception high school career, so that part isn't in question. The problem now is a user, not from the college football project, feels that information on the three-way quarterback battle at USC (national news in the spring) as well as information about the player's personal life (well sourced) should be deleted. I've seen a half-dozen arguments cited, but they aren't strong and it just seems to be a classic case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't relevant and assumes no good faith on my part (despite the fact that I've put together GA and FA articles in this topic and plan to keep developing the article). He's now started a discussion on BLP which is not pointing out that CFB has produced GAs like Mark Sanchez, Calvin Johnson and Darren McFadden --and those three either use "early years" or "personal" to address stuff that isn't necessarily football related. I would like to ask any interested WP:CFB participants to voice their opinion either on the Talk page or the BLP page, as this could set an unfortunate precedent for future player-of-note articles. -- Bobak ( talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
An article titled 2010 Auburn Tigers football team has been created. I nominated it for deletion, but the template was removed. I'd like to bring it up here, though, in order to get a greater sampling of thought. These types of future season articles have been shot down in other sports wikiprojects. In WP:WikiProject Football and WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey, it is inappropriate to create a team season article until the previous season for all teams involved in the league/competetion has ended. Isn't that the policy here as well? Would it be more appropriate to create something such as Colorado Buffaloes football (future schedule), although I think this may not be encyclopedic in its current form and need deleted. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, specifically point #4. I believe that it would be more encyclopedic to delete the 2010 Auburn article and create something such as Future of Auburn Tigers football, where information about coaches' contracts, future scheduling contracts, and other such information could be collected and presented as a proper article, but I'm still not sure if it passes WP:Notability. Thoughts? Knowledge? Ideas? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not quite CFB, but would like thoughts on whether or not to add a "College" field to the MLB Player infobox Corpx ( talk) 03:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey gang, rember about 9 months ago when we got nailed with all kind of AFDs on head coach articles under something people called the West Precedent? Wanted to post an update--right now, 47% of those deleted have been restored, many have gone through multiple processes and reviews by outside editors and all have been reviewed by the deleting admins!
Want to help with the rest? Check out my user page listing User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach where I've got user pages set up and many of the articles have had some significant work on them. Some just need a few more touches and they'll be ready!
But the neat part here is that we now have a serious argument using WP:SNOW that a head coach article should not be deleted. Of those gone through deletion in a huge block, nearly half have been restored--and there's more to come! I'll grant you it's taken a lot of time and research, but that should still carry some serious weight in our AFD discussions and ability to make a case for notability.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that there are currently pages for the 1941, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1988, 2000, 2003, and 2006- 2009 Oregon State Beavers football teams. It is not obvious to me that individual teams by season are inherently notable. I expect, though, that members of this WikiProject would have more informed opinions on this issue than I do. What do you think? Cnilep ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So I just added {{ College coach infobox}} to Bobby Dodd's article. I managed to fill in most of the fields, but I have a question. He was nominated to the College Football Hall of Fame twice, as a player (1959) and as a coach (1993). Is there any way to represent that in the infobox? Also, is there a listing of awards by coach somewhere? I'm sure he's won something or other, I just don't know what. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In other news I'm thinking of nominating it for Good Article. Any general advice on it before I do so? — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Could some other editors please take a look at this article. There is an ongoing content dispute between myself and User:Cgsports12 who is attempting to include research from a newspaper article that he wrote himself. The info includes statistics that could conceivably be useful, but there is so far no evidence to show that it is directly relevant to the term covered by the article. There also may be conflict of interest and original research issues at hand. More information is on the article's talk page. Strikehold ( talk) 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet Bowl (game) where it looks like no one from the projecdt had a chance to participate.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw that there was a template for Conferences' respective football seasons {{ 2009-10 NCAA Division I FBS football conferences}}. Is there a layout that we should follow to create these pages? I saw that they were somewhat similar and I would like to start one for the MAC. Thanks. –Nav talk to me or sign my guestbook 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just deleted the article Steve Belichick because it was, from its earliest revisions, plagiarized from a book by David Halberstam. I've restarted it as a very short stub. Any help in expanding it would be appreciated. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to changing the way threads on this talk page are archived from the current date method (i.e. May2009) to a more prevalent numbering system (i.e. 1)? More projects use this method making it more standard and it is supported better by other bots for indexing. Also, it would allow us to specify a page size before incrementing. Right now, we are having months with less than 10 threads so the archives are becoming too numerous. Any objections?↔ NMajdan• talk 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey peoples, i need someone to help make the reference links (since i dont kno how to make them) on the 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season page and mabye even clos off the table (for now, as there are still more games left). I did my best in makeing each key game column good and entertaining as well (even tho im a noob at editing). cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDM08 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in editing college football articles but chimed in as second a second opinion for the GA review of Maryland Terrapins football. It was the original reviewers opinion that the lead was to long and I see it as being focused too much on the accomplishments of the coaches. I was wondering if anyone more familiar with these articles had any thoughts. I'm reading it as I am reading it but I could be completely wrong. I also wanted to mention that this is one of the better college football articles I have come across. Not even sure if I would prevent the promotion or not if I was the primary reviewer. Assuming it gets to GA sooner than later, any other thoughts from project members on how to get it higher in the assessment scale (FA?) might be useful. Cptnono ( talk) 07:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have created a new template to help with the task of creating team depth chart displays. It eliminates the need to have any HTML or Wikitable editing abilities, which used to be a real pain (and the results were still inconsistent). I have implemented the template on several articles:
Please take a look at the template and its documentation and give me some feedback. Cheers!-- CobraGeek The Geek 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I made a suggestion here and I would appreciate the input of others. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Just passing on some general wiki knowledge. There is a new way to cite sources in articles and I find that it helps declutter the text of the article allowing all the cite templates to be put in the {{ reflist}} template. You can read about it here and here and I've used it in one of the articles I'm working on so you can see it in action on List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft.↔ NMajdan• talk 22:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have submitted List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons for peer review. Any help would be appreciated. A link to the review is here. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Long section title, sorry. I was looking for a way to possibly improve on game notes for the 2009 Pittsburgh Panthers football team article that I've been working on, and I came across something interesting. Most articles seem to use {{ Linescore Amfootball}}. However, I came across {{ AFB Game Box Start}}, {{ AFB Game Box Scoring Entry}}, and {{ AFB Game Box End}}. Those templates aren't used as frequently as the Linescore template; AFB Game Box Scoring Entry is, as of this writing, only used in two articles! What's the consensus on these templates, and do we want to use them or not? As you can see at 2008 Kansas City Chiefs season, that when implemented it places the statistics in a box and allows for a prose summary that is more infrequently interrupted by scores, times, and statistics, than in other articles such as 2008 Indianapolis Colts season and many other number-heavy sports season articles. Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody please take a look at the article above? Its a featured list and a pretty prominent list for our Project and it is severely broken and needs immediate attention. I don't have time this weekend to search through the numerous changes of the last three days to identify which edit broke it, but if no one else addresses it this weekend, I will on Monday.↔ NMajdan• talk 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The Sporting News link is linking to the 2007 year in 2006 College Football All-America Team. See comment at Talk:2006_College_Football_All-America_Team#Sporting_news_link_to_wrong_year.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments are welcome and appreciated. The nomination is here.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments are welcome and appreciated. The nomination is here.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would improve the appearance of seasonal team articles if we enabled the use of colors in the team cells in the linescore template (i.e., where team names now appear simply in black against a white background, edit the template to allow allow the text and background in the team fields to appear in each team's respective colors). The score fields would be left in black and white so things don't get too loud. It's a small suggestion, but I do think it would be an aesthetic improvement and be beneficial to readers by giving them a sense of each team's colors. I'd do it myself, but I must confess I lack the technical wherewithal to edit the template code to allow this.- PassionoftheDamon ( talk) 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Been working on this the last couple of days. Any additional help would be appreciated. Instructions can be found on the select picture page and selected article page. Converting them to the new format is tedious. Previously, we had to make sure we had a new selected article every month and a new image every week. This new format I'm working on uses a new (well, new since I worked on the Portal last) template that picks an article or image at random. Feel free to ask any questions if you are willing to help.— NMajdan• talk 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a recent wave of edits removing logos on individual team's yearly pages with the reasoning of "not the team's logo in this year; didn't become logo until xxxx". It is of my opinion, that there is no existing policy or criteria that requires use of historical logos in the infobox in this context, as the logo in the infobox is for the identification of the article topic to the reader. For this reason, contemporary logos might better serve here for identification purposes for the association of the team with the institution it represents, using the modern incarnation of how that institution chooses to represent itself. This is not to say that it is wrong to use historical logos, but it should not be required in my opinion, as a single year or sports team is not typically defined by one particular logo, rather it is a continuing and ongoing representation of the institution that currently choses to represent itself in a specific, and modern way. Historical logos or uniforms could also be presented in the text. This reasoning, in regards to the Pitt logo, was discussed with the single editor making this wave of changes here. I would like to try to form a consensus on the appropriateness of contemporary versus historical logos for past season infoboxes, as his edits have continued without seeking consensus for such a guideline or policy. CrazyPaco ( talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to pose some questions.
1. What is the purpose of the lead image in the season-specific infoboxes?
2. Current-use logos are being deleted from season-specific articles on the
charges of revisionist history. Is it true that use of current-use logos as the lead image in the season article infobox constitutes revisionist history?
3. Should current-use logos be deleted and banned from use in season-specific articles?
4. Should current-use logos be discouraged from being used in season-specific articles in favor of vintage logos, when available?
CrazyPaco ( talk) 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think options 2 and contingency 1 or 2 provide the best options. This minimizes the number of fair use copyrighted images we have (an expressed goal of Wikipedia) and still provides an accurate visual representation of the entity (i.e. the 2001 team)
This "revisionist" stance is the latest in a series of issues with the same user. I see nothing in any guideline or policy or any other consensus that justifies such actions. I recommend reverting and then discussing on the various pages under WP:BRD.
While I believe his motives to be pure, his tactics rub a lot of people the wrong way, create additional animosity, and don't usually help develop consensus. Please remain calm and don't get frustrated. We will all get through this. — BQZip01 — talk 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone might want to look into the edits of Dutchbelted5 as he or she just changed the number of All-Americans in several articles. I don't see any sources cited for the old or new figures so it's difficult to tell if these edits are welcome corrections or vandalism. In either case, please consider more consistently citing sources in these articles. Thanks! -- ElKevbo ( talk) 06:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What would everyone think of an All-Americans template that kept the number of every school's All-Americans and you simply pass a parameter to it to return the value? I've thrown something together real quick in my userspace to give an example of what I'm talking about. <Removed since the real template has been created.> Those are the only two schools I've programmed in the template so far. It would be a lot easier to control the number of All-Americans in one template than making sure every school's article is correct. This same concept can be expanded to many other areas as well. Heisman Trophy Winners, National Championships (maybe), bowl games, etc. Thoughts?— NMajdan• talk 14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
<pre>
boxes (
see here). A temporary workaround is to just omit the space after the template (i.e. "Oklahoma has had 76
[1]consensus All-Americans."). Crap, another bug. Still a work-in-progress.—
NMajdan•
talk
16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody get rid of the extra lines for the record at Frank Cignetti, Sr.? I'm not sure what I am missing. Thanks! Grsz 11 22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 October 13#College football roster templates— NMajdan• talk 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've nearing completion now completed in my sandbox a
table of sourced claims on national championships by every applicable school. Input on how to integrate into the existing
NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article, or into its own separate article would be appreciated. The information and sources must specifically indicate which national titles the school claims and come from the institution itself (either the athletic website or media guide in most cases). The second and third sections in my sandbox would not appear in an article and are just to help me verify claims or a lack thereof while I'm researching the topic. Also, I'm stuck on Iowa. I can find no source indicating that they claim any football national championships. They would be the only team that I think might make an official claim (1958) but for which I can not find any source for. Any comments would be appreciated.
CrazyPaco (
talk)
02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I created the template Template:CFB Seasons Cat Header for use on the yearly category pages. I haven't started rolling it out to all categories yet but have placed it at Category:2009 NCAA Division I FCS football season so you can see it.— NMajdan• talk 20:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
header_link
—
NMajdan•
talk
00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)I have a burning question of absolutely vital importance at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Extra point try. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently created categories and sorting data for Big East football. For each of the 2009 team season articles I replaced the Category:2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season with Category:2009 Big East football season because the latter is a sub-category of the former. However, someone went back in and re-inserted the category on all of the articles. For a similar situation I would point to Category:English football (soccer) clubs 2009-10 season, which is a subcategory of Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2009-10 season. None of the English club season articles have the latter, more broad category on their page. I wanted to bring this situation up here to provide some clarification and get some feedback. Having both categories makes no sense because one is a subcategory of the other, but if that is the consensus of this project then I have no problem with it. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football on my Watchlist and find it to be a helpful thing to monitor. Since it is the most up-to-date listing of college football articles that are currently proposed for deletion, would it make sense to link it in the college football project template or someplace else? Cbl62 ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I just came across a subpage that I didn't know existed. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Cleanup listing has a list of CFB articles that are tagged with various maintenance tags.— NMajdan• talk 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
A new feature will be coming to the project in November December.
Mr.Z-bot collects data for the most popular pages for a given WikiProject. I have added this project so the bot will collect traffic data for all the articles within this project's scope in November and in early December, the 500 most visited articles will be posted
here. This should show us which articles are being read the most and allow us to focus more energy on those articles. With college football being so cyclical, the stats should be interesting.—
NMajdan•
talk
15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder to keep an eye out. I did a check on the 2009 Pittsburgh Panthers football team roster the other day, and I found that about 10 player bio articles existed that hadn't been tagged with either {{ WikiProject College football}} or {{ WikiProject University of Pittsburgh}} on their respective talk pages. Most of them were or almost were orphans. This probably isn't a big issue for old-time players – or even players from earlier this decade – but there are lots of people out there who think that their favorite player or friend from school should have their own WP page. As far as I'm concerned, the ones that I found meet general notability (media coverage, etc.), but I'm sure there are ones out there who don't. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The article referenced above is currently a mess. It is completely unsourced at this point and appears to consist of the creator's opinion as to what are the biggest upsets. If someone had the time and inclination, sources might be found to rescue this article and turn it into something worth saving. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Levineps has recently created a lot of new college football-related categories, and I'm not sure if they are needed. Examples: Category:College football culture and lore by team and all subcategories (is this necessary? What is wrong with the articles in these subcategories simply staying in the general football category?), Category:College football venues by team and all subcategories (all likely to have only a couple pages in the category), Category:College football head coaches by team (previous consensus has been against creating such a category scheme, see here, although I wouldn't mind taking a second look at this issue), subcategories of Category:College football announcers such as Category:Boston College Eagles football broadcasters (seems like performer by performance overcategorization). Thoughts? VegaDark ( talk) 13:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding in my two cents: I think everyone is agreed that coaches, players, seasons, and bowl games categories for each college program are not up for debate. They are needed and their contents will continue to grow over time. As for the venues, broadcasters, and culture and lore categories, I don't really have an objection even if a lot of these categories won't be filled by more than a small number of articles, unless, of course, there are some overarching Wikipedia principles being violated, which VegaDark does suggest. As for the culture and lore categories, if they are to stay I think we need a better definition about what they contain. Take Category:Florida Gators football culture and lore, for example. I don't think all those SEC Championship Game articles really belong there. Do we need a game category of which bowl games would be a sub-category? Then what do we do with an article like The Choke at Doak? It seems like it belongs in culture and lore, but maybe it should be in games instead, or both? As for the head coaches categories, what do we do with articles for people who were both an assistant and a head coach at a particular school, like, for example, Lloyd Carr at Michigan? Do to need make assistant coaches categories and then sub-divide coaches into head and assistant? Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Overcategorization in my opinion. Superman7515 ( talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In the case of seasons articles, even if a given school only has a small handful, the seasons category should be maintained. Most schools that only have one or two season articles have them for the most recent season or two. Likely, a 2010 season article for that school will be created next year and so on. Older historical seasons articles are being created all the time. Just in the past few weeks I created articles for every missing Michigan season going back to 1969 and pending my patience and sanity, I plan to create all the missing ones going back to program's beginning in 1879. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled with this category idea, it seems like it could be nebulous and open to a lot of different interpretations of "what is lore?" -- Bobak ( talk) 05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, all. I've noticed that there is very little uniformity among the various conference standings templates. In order to remedy this I've created three templates (based upon the college basketball standings table equivalents). The templates are: {{ CFB Standings Start}}, {{ CFB Standings Entry}}, and {{ CFB Standings End}}. I haven't yet added parameters to account for divisions and championship games, but it's very much on the agenda and shouldn't be difficult. I've already applied it to {{ 2007 Big Ten football standings}} if you want to see the templates in use. It's fairly simple and straightforward to use, and it cut the size of the aforementioned 2007 Big Ten standings template from 2,492 bytes down to 1,426 bytes, which is over a 40% decrease in file size. No more cumbersome formatting and markup analysis for every conference standings table for each and every season! Hooray! JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:2009 Big East football standings has been reverted a few times. I also posted on the talk page of the user who has been doing it. I've been meaning to do a roll-out on the rest of the 2009 templates too but haven't gotten around to it yet. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My ultimate goal is to get the College football portal featured. A big step toward that was completed today. I have not converted 58 good/featured college football articles to portal selected articles which appear randomly on the main page. Yesterday, I also tied the news section on the portal to the football page on WikiNews. Now, I need to convert all the old selected pictures to the new format as well. Any help would be appreciated. The list of pictures to convert is here. I've already done a few, so those can be used as a template.— NMajdan• talk 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If anybody is looking for something to do, Category:Excessive uses of cfb link needs to be cleaned out. Just throwing it out there.— NMajdan• talk 17:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across Colorado Buffaloes football (future schedule) and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule. Are these notable enough to keep? I think that they might be, but I also think that this information might possibly be better off reserved in someone's sandbox. If kept, these types articles would also definitely need citations to prove the data. Anyone else have thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 13:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm real disappointed with the way
Template:CollegePrimaryColor and
Template:CollegeSecondaryColor are set up. The primary color template has background
hardcoded while the secondary color template has color
hardcoded. This really limits how the templates can be used. Not sure what can be done about it, but just mentioning it here for any brainstorming. Ideally, it would be nice if we could remove all hardcoded CSS and just leave the hex color codes and then have a bot replace every instances of {{CollegePrimaryColor|Tulsa}}
with background:{{CollegePrimaryColor|Tulsa}}
and {{CollegeSecondaryColor|Tulsa}}
with color:{{CollegeSecondaryColor|Tulsa}}
.—
NMajdan•
talk
15:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
{{CollegePrimaryColor
→ background: #{{CollegePrimaryHex
{{CollegeSecondaryColor
→ color: #{{CollegeSecondaryHex
Whilst disambiguating Robert Hodge, I came across a quarterback for the Colorado Buffaloes, who I have included in the dab page as Robert Hodge (American football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't know enough about the subject to assess whether he is notable, but may be someone here might like to take a look and possibly create a stub article if appropriate. He is listed in the template {{ ColoradoBuffaloesQuarterbacks}}.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard of Wikipedia Books before (outside of the link in the print/export box) but I stumbled across them tonight. Might be something to look into for off-season work. Check out Category:Wikipedia:Books on sports.— NMajdan• talk 03:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that templates such as Template:2009-10 Big Ten football teams that list the team seasons of a conference for a given year aren't really needed if we have a standings template for that conference year, e.g. the analogous Template:2009 Big Ten football standings, that provides all the same links and conveys additional information as well, i.e. the records, standings, championships. What do others think? Jweiss11 ( talk) 07:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we need a template for conference awards and honors? Alternatively, a new section could be added at the bottom of Template:College Football Awards. I can only find Big Ten Conference football individual honors and Big East Conference football awards using Category:College football awards. I am not sure if no other conferences have pages or if they are just not categorized.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A new section in the existing Template:College Football Awards sounds like a good idea, but it probably makes sense to build out the pages for the other FBS conference awards, or at least the other four BCS conferences, first. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have requested a bot that would go through various templates and replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) in certain parameters. Any other suggestions, approval or even disapproval would be appreciated. Also, if I missed any template, please add it to the list on the Bot request page. Thanks.— NMajdan• talk 16:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I needed one for a list I was making because I was too lazy to do the math myself, so I created a template to do it for me (that probably took 5x as long as it would've taken me to just do the math myself, go figure). Its there if anyone else needs it. {{ Winning percentage}}.— NMajdan• talk 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Instead of having 13 different nav templates for this FBS season – one for each of the 11 FBS conferences ( such as this), one that links to each conference season, and one for the bowls – I've taken the liberty of creating one central template that navigates the entire season. I left it here in my sandbox so everyone can check it out first. What does everyone think of just redirecting all of the various 2009–10 season templates to this or a similar, comprehensive nav template? Other sports WikiProjects have created nav templates this large, such as Template:2009–10 in English football and many other large soccer-related templates. However, I was thinking that one way to condense the CFB season template would be to eliminate team nicknames and leave only the school name to display. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
So it doesn't look like our popular pages listing got created for this month. We'll definitely get it next month. In the meantime, you can see the 100 most popular CFB articles in December here (updated daily). That should suffice for this month. This highest article that is actually CFB-related (as opposed to NFL or other former players/coaches) is Bobby Bowden. The highest ranked currently active player is...drum roll please... Tim Tebow.— NMajdan• talk 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I created a roster template for college basketball articles (like this) based on a similar template for NBA articles. I really liked the functionality that allowed you to sort by various attributes. I was thinking about bringing this over to the CFB world but the number of players on a team was definitely a hurdle. I knew I couldn't have each player on one row and so I knew I couldn't have as much info about each player (no height/weight, home town, etc). But then how best to break up the columns. I thought about leaving the structure the way we do it now where we pretty much break it up by each position. But that would be too difficult to code. So I figured the easiest way to break it up would be offensive players, defensive players, and special teams (obviously the latter column would be incredibly short compared to the other two). So, what we lose in dropping the numerous separate categories, we regain with the ability to sort by position. Then I had to figure out how to code this multi-column list as it couldn't be done the same way as the CBB template.
So, I think I got it all finished now. I have used the new template in the 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team article, so check it out and let me know what you think. I have parameterized the year column so it can be dropped and used in an NFL article (I'll let the NFL project know later). I will work on the help documentation tomorrow but you can get a good feel for how it works by looking at the example above. I think it ended up a little longer than the old format, but again, I love having the ability to sort (I did compact it a little to save a bit on vertical space).
— NMajdan• talk 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just coming to this discussion after (oops) creating my own template which I'm testing on 2009 Central Michigan Chippewas football team. This template ({{ NCAAFootballTeamRoster}} is based on the existing bare html and the roster templates used for professional baseball (e.g. {{ MLB roster}}). Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I am writing the Tai Streets article and realize it would be good if Bowl games had a link like {{ cfb link}} that would link to the general bowl game article until the specific year article is created.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is discord among the editors of Brandon Graham about how to discribe his All-American Status in his infobox. The disagreement is between whether it should say
According to the five lists that are recognized by the NCAA he is a consensus second team All-American with no first team recognition. His only first team recognitions are by "unofficial" lists that do not count towards consensus or unanimous AA status. I feel it provides disinformation to the reader to describe a consensus second team player with no official first team recognition as "First-team All-American". Opinions welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which (if any) of you may have the {{ Heisman Trophy}} template on your watchlist, but I just made a suggestion on the talk page and would like some feedback (either here or there). :) – Latics ( talk) 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads-up I nominated 2000 Sugar Bowl for Today's Featured Article for January 4, the ten-year anniversary of the game. I thought this especially appropriate since Bobby Bowden is retiring three days earlier. The request can be found here. – Grondemar 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion (collapsed)
|
---|
MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. Suggestion: MWC to auto-bid and national championship game selection: Boise State, or Tulsa + Houston; Colorado and Iowa State/Kansas State; Washington State? MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. If Boise State joins, the MWC should also consider extending an invitation to Washington State University. WSU's program is in the dumps; WSU is also closer in size and culture to the Mountain West schools than the Coastal and California schools. Its incentive would be similar to the Big 12 North schools. The addition of one or two of these schools would add significant depth and legitimacy to the conference, filling out the middle of the 'pack'. Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State
Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses.Mwcadv (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State
Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses. Mwcadv ( talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwcadv ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
|
I have begun a little overhaul of the above list as the current list is a little messy and doesn't sort correctly. This was discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page. I'm doing several things in this overhaul, including verifying the numbers that we currently have are either accurate, up-to-date and/or verified by the source (I've already found several discrepancies). Also, I'm archiving the sources and switching to LDR reference format. At my current pace, I'll have the list ready to go in 2011, so any help would be appreciated. With the season almost over, I'm sure we'll all have a bit more time to devote to these articles. The development page for the list is here: Talk:List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiums/Dev.— NMajdan• talk 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that Brian Kelly (American football coach) be moved, because I believe this article is the primary topic for "Brian Kelly." I would appreciate the comments of my fellow editors on its discussion page. Thank you in advance. -- Pgp688 ( talk) 11:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Not wanting to get in a revert war, I'm bringing this here. In light of Leach's suspension from Tech, another editor added the DC as the head coach at Template:Big 12 Conference head football coaches. I feel that Leach is still the official head coach as he has not been fired, but suspended. I reverted the change to the template, restoring Leach as the coach but the editor reverted it back. What are the thoughts of others on this issue?— NMajdan• talk 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject College football to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(I asked this question over on WP:Reference desk/Entertainment, but I thought I'd also ask over here since that RefDesk seems rather music-dominated, and there might be more people knowledgeable about college football on this WikiProject talk page.)
Why is the state of New York so bad at college football? This result is surprising considering that New York has at least two strong reasons to be good at college football:
First, American football is certainly a very popular sport in New York. Consider that it has not one or two but three professional teams: the New York Giants, the New York Jets, and the Buffalo Bills.
Second, New York has the third-highest population of any state in the United States, so there should be a large pool of high school players from which New York colleges can recruit. Consider that almost all the other high-population states have historically elite or near-elite college football programs (this list is descending by population):
Who does New York have? The Syracuse Orange? The Army Black Knights? The Buffalo Bulls? Even if we include New Jersey (as right next door to NYC and where the Giants and Jets are actually based), we only get the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Putting it charitably, these are not exactly elite football programs. So why is New York so bad at college football, considering that they should have popularity and population advantages over most other states?
I can account for Army's weakness -- being a military academy makes for stringent admission standards which make it difficult to recruit an elite football team. But the question is why New York doesn't have elite state university system football programs like other high-population states do.
— Lowellian ( reply) 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Colege basketball has a series of American college basketball Consensus All-American templates. I was going to make one for the 2009 College Football All-America Team. Is there a reason why we do not have such templates?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the purpose of 2010 Kentucky Wildcats football team is. It seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTDIR. Others, like 2010 Florida Gators football team seem more developed, but still not much more than a bunch of near-blank tables. My main issue is, is there consensus to create such articles before the season begins? I would like to know whether it would be appropriate to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2010 NC State Wolfpack football team and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2010 South Carolina Gamecocks football team? Thanks, fetch comms ☛ 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Jweiss11 ( talk · contribs) has been creating an article for, as far as I can tell, every team fielded by Michigan in history, e.g. 1906 Michigan Wolverines football team, 1908 Michigan Wolverines football team, etc. I recognize that my personal idea of notability in the realm of bands and sports is somewhat more limited than most people's, but this seems like overkill. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists; unless specific rosters had lasting notability (e.g. won a high profile championship), I'm not seeing the justification for these articles. — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 18:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Obamafan70 just created College Football Performance Awards. Anyone ever heard of these awards? Because I didn't. -- bender235 ( talk) 18:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Was there ever a decision not to have separate year articles for the All-star games such as the 2010 East-West Shrine Game and 2010 Senior Bowl. Many places link to the more generic East-West Shrine Game and Senior Bowl, while linking all other bowls to individual games.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
After creating the peer review request several days ago with no feedback, I figured I would add it here. I've added a peer review request which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Alabama Crimson Tide football/archive1. Any commentary is appreciated. Thanks all. :) – Latics ( talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see point spread format confusion in the bowl game articles and some reversions and edit wars. Users are being directed to this discussion, with nothing started yet. The example in the Template:Infobox_NCAA_football_single_game shows "WLSU favored by 2.5 points" as the example. Is there confusion being created by having to refer to the sports betting article just to understand a stat that would seem simpler to others? The example shown is clear enough to both those who make book and those who do not. Although, it may seem to simplistic to those who know betting lines. Also, is just the spread sufficient, or do over and under and other lines belong too? There seems to be some references needed too, but what organization is the supreme authority in gathering the betting lines legal or otherwise? Is someone collecting the consensus legal books, and at what point, right before game time? Thanks much, Group29 ( talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Jrcla2 has been removing Category:College football coaches from all articles on college coaches, including coaches that have no other subcategory. This has resulted in many coaches, such as Bruce Young, having only a stub category and a living people category. Opinions would be appreciated at Category talk:College football coaches. If there is a better talk page for notification on a discussion on this, please let me know. Thanks, -- Baron Larf 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Oklahoma Sooners football article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My review is here. I have found problems with the article that will require work to maintain its GA status. I have placed the article on hold and I am notifying all interested editors and projects. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 17:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone help me out filling in the missing starting quarterbacks for Template:NUQuarterback? I have the quarterbacks from now to 1996 and a few before 1996, but I need some help. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 2) regarding the naming of college football season categories. I'd appreciated input from CFB project participants. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 15:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Larsen to participate in current active deletion discussions.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class college football articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about coaches such as Bobby Bowden. I think we could add a column in our project active participant lists for someone who would be willing to coach or mentor new project members. Further, it would be a good idea to find a way to "assign a mentor" to each new member. Comments?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Archive 7 [8], there is a discussion about Odds, or the point spread format in the football game templates. No consensus had been reached. But a slow edit war has been going on in 2010 bowl game articles between User:Bband11th (who favors X team by n) and User:X96lee15 (who favors X Team -n). See the example at 2009 EagleBank Bowl. Group29 ( talk) 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In the book The College Football Handicapper: How to Beat the Spread in College Football by Bill Bravenec, the author uses both forms. One example has both forms in the same sentence on page 12, "The game opened with Minnesota favored by 14, but Minnesota was bet up to -17 by game time..." Group29 ( talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been debating with folks at WP:HOCKEY about navboxes. Can you please make sure that I am representing the college football position on the policy User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue correctly.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think All conference should copy the 2010 NFL Draft format and relevant info like I did at 2009_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#2010_NFL_Draft.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
Can someone with more patience, time, and interest please check out Bobby Bowden National Collegiate Coach of the Year Award? The article has some severe style and content issues and the editor probably needs to be blocked for a username violation and warned about COI. Thanks! -- ElKevbo ( talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a really bad article. Most of the citations aren't really citations -- they just go to general webgpages like the homepage for SEC baseball. This should be the definition of stub-class, as far as I'm concerned. 166.82.82.98 ( talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I am looking at attacking template clutter. One thing I am thinking about is merging all templates that recognize the same honor. E.g., how about
Rather than {{Heisman Trophy}} {{Maxwell Award}} {{AP Players of the Year}} {{Archie Griffin Award}} {{Walter Camp Award}} {{Chic Harley Award}} {{Sporting News College Football Player of the Year}} or
Rather than {{Sammy Baugh Trophy}} {{Davey O'Brien Award}} {{Manning Award}} {{College Football Quarterback of the Year}} {{Johnny Unitas Award}} Thoughts?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a collape feature above and a redesigned format by decade below:
For someone like Kerry Collins who only won one award, both formats could automatically open to that one like below
Here's an example for such an opt in template:
User:Amalthea/sandbox/CFPlayer of the year (optin)
Uses kind of a hack to rename the template parameters for the navbox groups, which makes them unrecgnizable by the wrapper, and thus hidden. Collapsing logic can then probably be removed.
Amalthea
15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Think I got it. what do you think about this? (Bear in mind, this is all one template with different calls; see the wikicode), (changed to nowiki as these were causing issues with other templates on this talk page): {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|heisman=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|waltercamp=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|ap=yes|heisman=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|heisman=yes|waltercamp=yes|griffin=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|ap=yes|harley=yes|tsn=yes}} With this, you can explicitly call only the awards that the subject of the article won. One template would serve all players of the year and you wouldn't have to have a list on the subject's article that they didn't win. And, you don't have to break it down by decade.— NMajdan• talk 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A deletion review has been proposed for Directional Michigan. Feel free to participate in the discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a really odd case because Directional Michigan is used as a derogatory term, particularly by the ESPN College Football Live Crew. Dan LeFevour hopefully puts this to rest in the coming years. Also, Central Michigan beating Big Ten teams more regularly can only help distinguish them.
Are these awards notable enough to deserve a prominent spot in certain players lead section (like Dez Bryant, Dennis Pitta)? User:Obamafan70 keeps adding those, but he seems to be in a WP:COI situation, as his contributions to Wikipedia indicate some sort of affiliation to CFPA (it's basically a single-purpose account to spread those awards everywhere on Wikipedia). -- bender235 ( talk) 22:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You clearly ignored the following 4 articles: http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/011210aaa.html http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/092909aaa.html http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/091409aaa.html http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/060909aaa.html
You also ignored the 2 articles about Dennis Pitta: http://www.byucougars.com/Filing.jsp?ID=12782 http://www.byucougars.com/Filing.jsp?ID=12742
The program is covered by the AP here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-01-11-3700403542_x.htm
Bender235 and Yankees10 appear to be the ones with conflicts of interest. Perhaps they work for the Mackey Award.
>>They are covered in the Pitta profile: http://www.byucougars.com/Profile.jsp?ID=2086 under 2009. They aren't covered in the Bryant profile because it hasn't been updated since December 2007, before he won all those awards. Then again you could just watch the presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg8Wjbn1s34&feature=channel ....video has over 3,500 views. Obamafan70 ( talk) 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The notability of an award is certainly based upon many factors. Some of the criteria should include:
1) National media attention 2) University press releases, etc. 3) Level of social media 4) Website traffic/audience size, etc. 5) Longevity of award's existence 6) Sponsorship name (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, etc.) 7) Academic/governmental respect/recognition 8) Respect from coaches, players, etc..
Your criticism of the notability of CFPA seems to be only centered around (5) or possibly (6). It's pretty clear that CFPA has national media attention, university endorsement, praise from coaches, etc.. And with the audience size of 550,000+, I don't know how you could possibly maintain that it's not notable, unless you had some sort of pre-existing bias against new football programs. I mean come on -- there were presentations at both Texas and Alabama, the BCS title participants -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIkNME4Z_Ik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0aH62LKkw&feature=channel Obamafan70 ( talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Take the discussion to WP:3O, WP:NPOV/N or WP:RFC.— NMajdan• talk 15:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There are about 3 or 4 different issues at play here, brought up by numerous parties. I think there are some definite equivocations here and possibly even quote mining.
(1) Is a CFPA trophy equally notable to the Heisman Trophy? I think any sensible person would agree that the Heisman Trophy is a transcendent award. It's like winning an Oscar or Grammy as people outside the domain of interest often know who has won the award. Universities pay millions of dollars to advertise their candidates and build full-fledged campaigns to promote them throughout national and local media. The Heisman has inspired iconic displays, rap music, and even film. In fact, a sizable minority of the public probably even cares more about who wins the Heisman than the actual US presidency. And to clarify, I've never suggested that a CFPA trophy was equally notable to the Heisman.
(2) What is the actual criteria for award notability? This is pretty interesting question as there are many awards in college football. I listed what I think are pretty good criteria above. I have not attempted to weigh them, describe them, or even specify how they could measured. A few brief points--
(3)Is CFPA as notable as the Doak Walker, Ray Guy, Lou Groza, Maxwell? I think this is wholly debatable. Certainly, the Doak Walker, et al have been around longer, but we're also talking about an entire system of awards (22), which had a cumulative audience over 500,000 last year. And the program has 5 special teams awards, including the only punt returner and kickoff returner awards. Also, the audience is basically on par with the audience of all 5 BCS games combined. We're talking about a company with high level endorsements, including someone from the NSA. These are the type of people upon whom lives depend on a daily basis. You can't say either of those things about the traditional awards, for lack of better words. I would possibly concede that CFPA is less notable than say, the Davey O' Brien Award, but I think it's pretty much open terrain here.
(4) What awards are notable for a header? This is closely linked with (3) and also with the recommended criteria. Awards are important because they often demonstrate the notability of the subject. In particular, if we are talking about a freshman player like LaMichael James, then there is likely some debate about whether or not he meets WP:ATHLETE. Mentioning that he won the CFPA Freshman trophy and was Pac-10 Freshman of the Year is valuable for a lead, in my opinion, to demonstrate his legitimacy for inclusion on Wikipedia. Of course, one of the problems here is that it is going to be very difficult to achieve agreement on (4) with the entire Wikipedia community (practically speaking). It would be nice to see athlete articles adopt similar standards across the board for headers. Obamafan70 ( talk) 17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
As a Sooner fan in Dallas, originally from Tulsa, I've been hearing about the Performance Awards program since 2008. It's covered on a weekly basis by the Tulsa World and Oklahoman, since so many players from OU, Ok State, and Tulsa win their weekly honors. Broyles was covered on KTUL, the local ABC affiliate when he won the punt returner of the week award against Ok State. Of course, since it's new, it means different things to different people. Ok State and UT have them on display in their trophy cases. The Dez Bryant trophy is in a case right next to the Barry Sanders Heisman. OU just won a Heisman, so we could care less. 166.82.82.98 ( talk) 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In my infancy with college football articles, I created a Michigan team template that, with the benefit of 2 years of hindsight, I think is WAY too long. TonyTheTiger has suggested that the "Important Figures" section is too subjective, and I agree. As part of any revamping, I'm inclined to eliminate that section. Here's how it looks now:
Before revamping it, I thought I'd raise the question here as to what others in the project think are the key components to include in a team template. I don't think we need complete uniformity in how the team templates are done, but some discussion of key elements and consistency is a good idea. Here are some samples of what others have done:
I agree with Tony that "Important Figures" is too subjective, but I'd be interested to know which other elements people think should/should not be included. My preliminary views are noted in italics. Consensus All-Americans? Link to a list rather than putting all the names in the template College Football HOF inductees? Yes, these individuals have been recognized as all-time greats at the collegiate level University athletic hall of fame inductees? Link to a list rather than putting all the names in the template Former or current NFL players? Link to a list rather than putting all the names in the template Players with numbers retired by the University? Yes, same rationale as College Football Hall of Fame Lore/Culture? Undecided. Pretty subjective stuff, and I'm not sure how to limit what's in it, but lore is such an integral part of the college game Rivalries? Probably fine Heisman Trophy winners? Undecided National championships? Yes Conference championships? Undecided Seasons? I think so, and then we could eliminate separate templates that do the same thing. Historic listing of home fields? I don't think so. I'd just list the current home stadium as is done in most templates Historic overall win-loss record? Undecided Current coaching staff? Yes Starting quarterbacks? No Input from others appreciated. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 92900/1000000 Post-expand include size: 1270237/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 643262/2048000 bytes Expensive parser function count: 0/500
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi everyone, I'm trying to add a section in the infobox to include a diagram of the current team uniform, similar to those found on any NFL franchise article. I've added the template from the NFL franchise infobox to the college football infobox, currently as invisible text, and have been tinkering with it, but can't seem to make it work. If anyone can help me out, I'd appreciate it. CH52584 ( talk) 02:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I need further clarification regarding this article title. Everyone from this project is invited to comment. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
We've made a lot of progress in filling in the historic All-America Teams dating back to the 19th Century. Still a few more to go. The lists for each year show a number of consensus All-American players who do not even have stubs. I've been creating articles on some as time permits, and encourage anyone else with time available to work on this as well. Template below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 ( talk • contribs)
Any input into this template? Contemplating expanding it to teams or players, depending on feedback. – LATICS talk 07:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi where can I find old player statistics? The guy in my article played for Michigan from 1969-1971. Is there a site with his stats? Please help me improve this article. Thanks. TomCat4680 ( talk) 06:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. can someone fix Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer so it doesn't show gobly goop next to his position? TomCat4680 ( talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, there is a list of articles to be reassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. This system requires that an editor put the article in this list, and that somebody else assess the article and modify the list to reflect the reassessment. In my opinion, there is a better way to do this.
Over at WP:UTSH, we have a hook/note in the project banner that allows you to flag an article for reassessment, simply by setting a parameter on the talk page "reassess=yes". This puts the article in a category. For example, on WP:UTSH, that category is Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing reassessment. We could do something similar here, like Category:College football articles needing reassessment. Then, to request an assessment, simply set "reassess=yes" to flag it, and then an editor can assess the article, leave a comment, and clear the reassessment flag. Might be an easier way to keep the list clean, and would only require a minor edit to the banner template. What do you guys think?
PS: I've demoed a version of the updated banner and a test case in the sandbox. De Fault Ryan 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the right place to ask for help, since it doesn't deal with content, but since it is a college football page, I will ask here. On Georgia Bulldogs football I have noticed two formatting problems. The first is that the main infobox is overlapping some of the introduction. The other is that the infobox and/or images has created a large gap in the first section (History). I thought about tinkering with it, but I would just be wasting my time. If anyone could help, please do. If you think I should take this request to a more general help page, let me know. Thanks! Brinkley32 ( talk) 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a project sub-page showing college football related hooks that have been featured on the Main Page as part of the "Did you know..." feature. It's at: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/DYK. Any thoughts on how to improve it or link it to other project pages/templates? Cbl62 ( talk) 06:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute between User:Yankees10 and me, so I'm asking you guys for some additional opionions. Do you think it is useful to have certain quotes (by renowned football experts) highlighted via Template:Cquote in players' articles, like here or here? I definitely think it is, but Yankees10 dissents. So what do you think? -- bender235 ( talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
What exactly makes this quote any more important than any other quote? And again you should leave this at WP:NFL considering Aaron Curry is no longer a college football player-- Yankees10 13:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin do something to halt disruptive edits by an IP user, starting 157.182.224.###. The editor has repeatedly edited articles that link to WVU Mountaineers football articles – see the following links with final IP #s included: here (.216), here (.125), here (.120), and here (.88). The edits change proper formatting and wikilinking & references to WVU-related articles into ones that this user apparently prefers. I've had to revert them increasingly on Pitt articles in the last few weeks. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 16:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just found Template:The Ivy League which duplicates the older Template:Ivy League Dougweller ( talk) 08:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Over the last two or so weeks I was able to assess little over two hundred articles. In the process I was able to find one GA, Germany Schulz, and one FA, Gerald Ford. Since it is the off season I wonder if anyone is interested in stating a drive to get rid of back log of unassessed college football articles? Right now we have about 1400. I figured if we can get 14 people to do 100 articles in the next month. 09er ( talk) 15:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
So far so good - nearly have the unassessed backlog down below 1000! Keep up the good work everybody. This will be a lot easier to mantain once we finally clear the backlog.
De
Fault
Ryan
19:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got an bot request to automatically scan the whole unassessed category, looking for articles that have already been assessed by other projects, and assess them to match the other assessments. I imagine it should go through tonight or tomorrow and it should be able to check a bunch off the list automatically. For now, try to focus on articles that are unlikely to be rated in another project. De Fault Ryan 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the bot is done now. Final tally is it got the backlog down to 483. Nice! Now it won't take too long at all to finish off the rest. De Fault Ryan 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask for someone from the Wikiproject to collaborate with me on the article about J. C. Watts by helping with football content. It is is pretty close to GA, but an ardent football fan quickfailed it recently for not having enough football coverage. The article falls in the scope of this Wikiproject and I would be very glad if someone contribued. Thank you! Hekerui ( talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned a year ago that there are two player infobox templates ({{ Infobox NCAA Athlete}} and {{ Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}) but not a single recommendation which one to use. Could we please decide that one here? I'm prefering the latter, since it looks similar to {{ Infobox NFLactive}}, which is only helpful to Wikipedia users. -- bender235 ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
With the recent changes to Template:NCAAFootballSchool to allow for the uniform images to be displayed, the uniform field (and some stray raw code) will still show up if there isn't anything entered for it (see, for example, George Washington Colonials football). Any chance someone with better template knowledge than me can fix this problem by making the uniform field conditional? Strikehold ( talk) 12:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion 0422 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Since there is already a page for rankings of FBS teams for the upcoming season, I was wondering if we should add a rankings page for the FCS teams as well? Music+mas ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This article only lists what conferences television networks are affiliated with through television contracts. I was wondering if it would be better to change this. For example, have sections for each conference and within these sections give more specific and detailed information about the television contracts these conferences have. There's more specific and detailed information would include something like the number of games a certain television network is contracted to broadcast. Or if there is not a set number, the details of the contract could be written down in the sections. I think this would improve the quality of the article. Music+mas ( talk) 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed there are a lot of articles out there that are within the scope of this project, but aren't tagged with the project banner and therefore are off the radar for assessment, improvement, etc. This is especially true for articles on players. I just went through the Category:Boise State Broncos football players and found that a full 33% (15 of 45) of articles weren't tagged.
A partial solution I can think of is to write a script for a bot to search for articles within certain categories (e.g. Category:Boston College Eagles football players) and tag their talk pages with the CFB banner if necessary. I've noticed ListasBot has been doing something similar to a lot of articles lately; taking lifetime information from the mainspace and tagging the talk space with it.
I don't know how to actually write the script to do that, but thought I'd bring it up if someone with the knowhow wanted to give it a shot. Strikehold ( talk) 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The article Ole Miss Rebels football has been identified as a copyright problem and will likely need to be reverted quite some ways if it is not cleaned (or if it cannot be verified that the source text is free for reuse). I am not a good candidate for revising football related articles, I'm afraid, as I am extremely unfamiliar with the sport. Might any of the participants of your project be available to help out? The article has been blanked per process and listed under today's WP:CP listings, which means it does not come ripe for admin closure for 7+1 days. Your assistance would be vastly appreciated. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed TCF Bank Stadium for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This player passed notability already, based off an exception high school career, so that part isn't in question. The problem now is a user, not from the college football project, feels that information on the three-way quarterback battle at USC (national news in the spring) as well as information about the player's personal life (well sourced) should be deleted. I've seen a half-dozen arguments cited, but they aren't strong and it just seems to be a classic case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't relevant and assumes no good faith on my part (despite the fact that I've put together GA and FA articles in this topic and plan to keep developing the article). He's now started a discussion on BLP which is not pointing out that CFB has produced GAs like Mark Sanchez, Calvin Johnson and Darren McFadden --and those three either use "early years" or "personal" to address stuff that isn't necessarily football related. I would like to ask any interested WP:CFB participants to voice their opinion either on the Talk page or the BLP page, as this could set an unfortunate precedent for future player-of-note articles. -- Bobak ( talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
An article titled 2010 Auburn Tigers football team has been created. I nominated it for deletion, but the template was removed. I'd like to bring it up here, though, in order to get a greater sampling of thought. These types of future season articles have been shot down in other sports wikiprojects. In WP:WikiProject Football and WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey, it is inappropriate to create a team season article until the previous season for all teams involved in the league/competetion has ended. Isn't that the policy here as well? Would it be more appropriate to create something such as Colorado Buffaloes football (future schedule), although I think this may not be encyclopedic in its current form and need deleted. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, specifically point #4. I believe that it would be more encyclopedic to delete the 2010 Auburn article and create something such as Future of Auburn Tigers football, where information about coaches' contracts, future scheduling contracts, and other such information could be collected and presented as a proper article, but I'm still not sure if it passes WP:Notability. Thoughts? Knowledge? Ideas? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not quite CFB, but would like thoughts on whether or not to add a "College" field to the MLB Player infobox Corpx ( talk) 03:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey gang, rember about 9 months ago when we got nailed with all kind of AFDs on head coach articles under something people called the West Precedent? Wanted to post an update--right now, 47% of those deleted have been restored, many have gone through multiple processes and reviews by outside editors and all have been reviewed by the deleting admins!
Want to help with the rest? Check out my user page listing User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach where I've got user pages set up and many of the articles have had some significant work on them. Some just need a few more touches and they'll be ready!
But the neat part here is that we now have a serious argument using WP:SNOW that a head coach article should not be deleted. Of those gone through deletion in a huge block, nearly half have been restored--and there's more to come! I'll grant you it's taken a lot of time and research, but that should still carry some serious weight in our AFD discussions and ability to make a case for notability.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that there are currently pages for the 1941, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1988, 2000, 2003, and 2006- 2009 Oregon State Beavers football teams. It is not obvious to me that individual teams by season are inherently notable. I expect, though, that members of this WikiProject would have more informed opinions on this issue than I do. What do you think? Cnilep ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So I just added {{ College coach infobox}} to Bobby Dodd's article. I managed to fill in most of the fields, but I have a question. He was nominated to the College Football Hall of Fame twice, as a player (1959) and as a coach (1993). Is there any way to represent that in the infobox? Also, is there a listing of awards by coach somewhere? I'm sure he's won something or other, I just don't know what. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In other news I'm thinking of nominating it for Good Article. Any general advice on it before I do so? — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 06:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Could some other editors please take a look at this article. There is an ongoing content dispute between myself and User:Cgsports12 who is attempting to include research from a newspaper article that he wrote himself. The info includes statistics that could conceivably be useful, but there is so far no evidence to show that it is directly relevant to the term covered by the article. There also may be conflict of interest and original research issues at hand. More information is on the article's talk page. Strikehold ( talk) 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet Bowl (game) where it looks like no one from the projecdt had a chance to participate.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw that there was a template for Conferences' respective football seasons {{ 2009-10 NCAA Division I FBS football conferences}}. Is there a layout that we should follow to create these pages? I saw that they were somewhat similar and I would like to start one for the MAC. Thanks. –Nav talk to me or sign my guestbook 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just deleted the article Steve Belichick because it was, from its earliest revisions, plagiarized from a book by David Halberstam. I've restarted it as a very short stub. Any help in expanding it would be appreciated. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to changing the way threads on this talk page are archived from the current date method (i.e. May2009) to a more prevalent numbering system (i.e. 1)? More projects use this method making it more standard and it is supported better by other bots for indexing. Also, it would allow us to specify a page size before incrementing. Right now, we are having months with less than 10 threads so the archives are becoming too numerous. Any objections?↔ NMajdan• talk 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey peoples, i need someone to help make the reference links (since i dont kno how to make them) on the 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season page and mabye even clos off the table (for now, as there are still more games left). I did my best in makeing each key game column good and entertaining as well (even tho im a noob at editing). cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDM08 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in editing college football articles but chimed in as second a second opinion for the GA review of Maryland Terrapins football. It was the original reviewers opinion that the lead was to long and I see it as being focused too much on the accomplishments of the coaches. I was wondering if anyone more familiar with these articles had any thoughts. I'm reading it as I am reading it but I could be completely wrong. I also wanted to mention that this is one of the better college football articles I have come across. Not even sure if I would prevent the promotion or not if I was the primary reviewer. Assuming it gets to GA sooner than later, any other thoughts from project members on how to get it higher in the assessment scale (FA?) might be useful. Cptnono ( talk) 07:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have created a new template to help with the task of creating team depth chart displays. It eliminates the need to have any HTML or Wikitable editing abilities, which used to be a real pain (and the results were still inconsistent). I have implemented the template on several articles:
Please take a look at the template and its documentation and give me some feedback. Cheers!-- CobraGeek The Geek 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I made a suggestion here and I would appreciate the input of others. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Just passing on some general wiki knowledge. There is a new way to cite sources in articles and I find that it helps declutter the text of the article allowing all the cite templates to be put in the {{ reflist}} template. You can read about it here and here and I've used it in one of the articles I'm working on so you can see it in action on List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft.↔ NMajdan• talk 22:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have submitted List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons for peer review. Any help would be appreciated. A link to the review is here. Thanks.↔ NMajdan• talk 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Long section title, sorry. I was looking for a way to possibly improve on game notes for the 2009 Pittsburgh Panthers football team article that I've been working on, and I came across something interesting. Most articles seem to use {{ Linescore Amfootball}}. However, I came across {{ AFB Game Box Start}}, {{ AFB Game Box Scoring Entry}}, and {{ AFB Game Box End}}. Those templates aren't used as frequently as the Linescore template; AFB Game Box Scoring Entry is, as of this writing, only used in two articles! What's the consensus on these templates, and do we want to use them or not? As you can see at 2008 Kansas City Chiefs season, that when implemented it places the statistics in a box and allows for a prose summary that is more infrequently interrupted by scores, times, and statistics, than in other articles such as 2008 Indianapolis Colts season and many other number-heavy sports season articles. Thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody please take a look at the article above? Its a featured list and a pretty prominent list for our Project and it is severely broken and needs immediate attention. I don't have time this weekend to search through the numerous changes of the last three days to identify which edit broke it, but if no one else addresses it this weekend, I will on Monday.↔ NMajdan• talk 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The Sporting News link is linking to the 2007 year in 2006 College Football All-America Team. See comment at Talk:2006_College_Football_All-America_Team#Sporting_news_link_to_wrong_year.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments are welcome and appreciated. The nomination is here.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments are welcome and appreciated. The nomination is here.↔ NMajdan• talk 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would improve the appearance of seasonal team articles if we enabled the use of colors in the team cells in the linescore template (i.e., where team names now appear simply in black against a white background, edit the template to allow allow the text and background in the team fields to appear in each team's respective colors). The score fields would be left in black and white so things don't get too loud. It's a small suggestion, but I do think it would be an aesthetic improvement and be beneficial to readers by giving them a sense of each team's colors. I'd do it myself, but I must confess I lack the technical wherewithal to edit the template code to allow this.- PassionoftheDamon ( talk) 11:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Been working on this the last couple of days. Any additional help would be appreciated. Instructions can be found on the select picture page and selected article page. Converting them to the new format is tedious. Previously, we had to make sure we had a new selected article every month and a new image every week. This new format I'm working on uses a new (well, new since I worked on the Portal last) template that picks an article or image at random. Feel free to ask any questions if you are willing to help.— NMajdan• talk 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a recent wave of edits removing logos on individual team's yearly pages with the reasoning of "not the team's logo in this year; didn't become logo until xxxx". It is of my opinion, that there is no existing policy or criteria that requires use of historical logos in the infobox in this context, as the logo in the infobox is for the identification of the article topic to the reader. For this reason, contemporary logos might better serve here for identification purposes for the association of the team with the institution it represents, using the modern incarnation of how that institution chooses to represent itself. This is not to say that it is wrong to use historical logos, but it should not be required in my opinion, as a single year or sports team is not typically defined by one particular logo, rather it is a continuing and ongoing representation of the institution that currently choses to represent itself in a specific, and modern way. Historical logos or uniforms could also be presented in the text. This reasoning, in regards to the Pitt logo, was discussed with the single editor making this wave of changes here. I would like to try to form a consensus on the appropriateness of contemporary versus historical logos for past season infoboxes, as his edits have continued without seeking consensus for such a guideline or policy. CrazyPaco ( talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to pose some questions.
1. What is the purpose of the lead image in the season-specific infoboxes?
2. Current-use logos are being deleted from season-specific articles on the
charges of revisionist history. Is it true that use of current-use logos as the lead image in the season article infobox constitutes revisionist history?
3. Should current-use logos be deleted and banned from use in season-specific articles?
4. Should current-use logos be discouraged from being used in season-specific articles in favor of vintage logos, when available?
CrazyPaco ( talk) 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think options 2 and contingency 1 or 2 provide the best options. This minimizes the number of fair use copyrighted images we have (an expressed goal of Wikipedia) and still provides an accurate visual representation of the entity (i.e. the 2001 team)
This "revisionist" stance is the latest in a series of issues with the same user. I see nothing in any guideline or policy or any other consensus that justifies such actions. I recommend reverting and then discussing on the various pages under WP:BRD.
While I believe his motives to be pure, his tactics rub a lot of people the wrong way, create additional animosity, and don't usually help develop consensus. Please remain calm and don't get frustrated. We will all get through this. — BQZip01 — talk 18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone might want to look into the edits of Dutchbelted5 as he or she just changed the number of All-Americans in several articles. I don't see any sources cited for the old or new figures so it's difficult to tell if these edits are welcome corrections or vandalism. In either case, please consider more consistently citing sources in these articles. Thanks! -- ElKevbo ( talk) 06:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What would everyone think of an All-Americans template that kept the number of every school's All-Americans and you simply pass a parameter to it to return the value? I've thrown something together real quick in my userspace to give an example of what I'm talking about. <Removed since the real template has been created.> Those are the only two schools I've programmed in the template so far. It would be a lot easier to control the number of All-Americans in one template than making sure every school's article is correct. This same concept can be expanded to many other areas as well. Heisman Trophy Winners, National Championships (maybe), bowl games, etc. Thoughts?— NMajdan• talk 14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
<pre>
boxes (
see here). A temporary workaround is to just omit the space after the template (i.e. "Oklahoma has had 76
[1]consensus All-Americans."). Crap, another bug. Still a work-in-progress.—
NMajdan•
talk
16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody get rid of the extra lines for the record at Frank Cignetti, Sr.? I'm not sure what I am missing. Thanks! Grsz 11 22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 October 13#College football roster templates— NMajdan• talk 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've nearing completion now completed in my sandbox a
table of sourced claims on national championships by every applicable school. Input on how to integrate into the existing
NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article, or into its own separate article would be appreciated. The information and sources must specifically indicate which national titles the school claims and come from the institution itself (either the athletic website or media guide in most cases). The second and third sections in my sandbox would not appear in an article and are just to help me verify claims or a lack thereof while I'm researching the topic. Also, I'm stuck on Iowa. I can find no source indicating that they claim any football national championships. They would be the only team that I think might make an official claim (1958) but for which I can not find any source for. Any comments would be appreciated.
CrazyPaco (
talk)
02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I created the template Template:CFB Seasons Cat Header for use on the yearly category pages. I haven't started rolling it out to all categories yet but have placed it at Category:2009 NCAA Division I FCS football season so you can see it.— NMajdan• talk 20:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
header_link
—
NMajdan•
talk
00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)I have a burning question of absolutely vital importance at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Extra point try. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently created categories and sorting data for Big East football. For each of the 2009 team season articles I replaced the Category:2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season with Category:2009 Big East football season because the latter is a sub-category of the former. However, someone went back in and re-inserted the category on all of the articles. For a similar situation I would point to Category:English football (soccer) clubs 2009-10 season, which is a subcategory of Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2009-10 season. None of the English club season articles have the latter, more broad category on their page. I wanted to bring this situation up here to provide some clarification and get some feedback. Having both categories makes no sense because one is a subcategory of the other, but if that is the consensus of this project then I have no problem with it. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football on my Watchlist and find it to be a helpful thing to monitor. Since it is the most up-to-date listing of college football articles that are currently proposed for deletion, would it make sense to link it in the college football project template or someplace else? Cbl62 ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I just came across a subpage that I didn't know existed. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Cleanup listing has a list of CFB articles that are tagged with various maintenance tags.— NMajdan• talk 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
A new feature will be coming to the project in November December.
Mr.Z-bot collects data for the most popular pages for a given WikiProject. I have added this project so the bot will collect traffic data for all the articles within this project's scope in November and in early December, the 500 most visited articles will be posted
here. This should show us which articles are being read the most and allow us to focus more energy on those articles. With college football being so cyclical, the stats should be interesting.—
NMajdan•
talk
15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder to keep an eye out. I did a check on the 2009 Pittsburgh Panthers football team roster the other day, and I found that about 10 player bio articles existed that hadn't been tagged with either {{ WikiProject College football}} or {{ WikiProject University of Pittsburgh}} on their respective talk pages. Most of them were or almost were orphans. This probably isn't a big issue for old-time players – or even players from earlier this decade – but there are lots of people out there who think that their favorite player or friend from school should have their own WP page. As far as I'm concerned, the ones that I found meet general notability (media coverage, etc.), but I'm sure there are ones out there who don't. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The article referenced above is currently a mess. It is completely unsourced at this point and appears to consist of the creator's opinion as to what are the biggest upsets. If someone had the time and inclination, sources might be found to rescue this article and turn it into something worth saving. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Levineps has recently created a lot of new college football-related categories, and I'm not sure if they are needed. Examples: Category:College football culture and lore by team and all subcategories (is this necessary? What is wrong with the articles in these subcategories simply staying in the general football category?), Category:College football venues by team and all subcategories (all likely to have only a couple pages in the category), Category:College football head coaches by team (previous consensus has been against creating such a category scheme, see here, although I wouldn't mind taking a second look at this issue), subcategories of Category:College football announcers such as Category:Boston College Eagles football broadcasters (seems like performer by performance overcategorization). Thoughts? VegaDark ( talk) 13:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding in my two cents: I think everyone is agreed that coaches, players, seasons, and bowl games categories for each college program are not up for debate. They are needed and their contents will continue to grow over time. As for the venues, broadcasters, and culture and lore categories, I don't really have an objection even if a lot of these categories won't be filled by more than a small number of articles, unless, of course, there are some overarching Wikipedia principles being violated, which VegaDark does suggest. As for the culture and lore categories, if they are to stay I think we need a better definition about what they contain. Take Category:Florida Gators football culture and lore, for example. I don't think all those SEC Championship Game articles really belong there. Do we need a game category of which bowl games would be a sub-category? Then what do we do with an article like The Choke at Doak? It seems like it belongs in culture and lore, but maybe it should be in games instead, or both? As for the head coaches categories, what do we do with articles for people who were both an assistant and a head coach at a particular school, like, for example, Lloyd Carr at Michigan? Do to need make assistant coaches categories and then sub-divide coaches into head and assistant? Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Overcategorization in my opinion. Superman7515 ( talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In the case of seasons articles, even if a given school only has a small handful, the seasons category should be maintained. Most schools that only have one or two season articles have them for the most recent season or two. Likely, a 2010 season article for that school will be created next year and so on. Older historical seasons articles are being created all the time. Just in the past few weeks I created articles for every missing Michigan season going back to 1969 and pending my patience and sanity, I plan to create all the missing ones going back to program's beginning in 1879. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled with this category idea, it seems like it could be nebulous and open to a lot of different interpretations of "what is lore?" -- Bobak ( talk) 05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, all. I've noticed that there is very little uniformity among the various conference standings templates. In order to remedy this I've created three templates (based upon the college basketball standings table equivalents). The templates are: {{ CFB Standings Start}}, {{ CFB Standings Entry}}, and {{ CFB Standings End}}. I haven't yet added parameters to account for divisions and championship games, but it's very much on the agenda and shouldn't be difficult. I've already applied it to {{ 2007 Big Ten football standings}} if you want to see the templates in use. It's fairly simple and straightforward to use, and it cut the size of the aforementioned 2007 Big Ten standings template from 2,492 bytes down to 1,426 bytes, which is over a 40% decrease in file size. No more cumbersome formatting and markup analysis for every conference standings table for each and every season! Hooray! JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:2009 Big East football standings has been reverted a few times. I also posted on the talk page of the user who has been doing it. I've been meaning to do a roll-out on the rest of the 2009 templates too but haven't gotten around to it yet. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My ultimate goal is to get the College football portal featured. A big step toward that was completed today. I have not converted 58 good/featured college football articles to portal selected articles which appear randomly on the main page. Yesterday, I also tied the news section on the portal to the football page on WikiNews. Now, I need to convert all the old selected pictures to the new format as well. Any help would be appreciated. The list of pictures to convert is here. I've already done a few, so those can be used as a template.— NMajdan• talk 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If anybody is looking for something to do, Category:Excessive uses of cfb link needs to be cleaned out. Just throwing it out there.— NMajdan• talk 17:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across Colorado Buffaloes football (future schedule) and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule. Are these notable enough to keep? I think that they might be, but I also think that this information might possibly be better off reserved in someone's sandbox. If kept, these types articles would also definitely need citations to prove the data. Anyone else have thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 13:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm real disappointed with the way
Template:CollegePrimaryColor and
Template:CollegeSecondaryColor are set up. The primary color template has background
hardcoded while the secondary color template has color
hardcoded. This really limits how the templates can be used. Not sure what can be done about it, but just mentioning it here for any brainstorming. Ideally, it would be nice if we could remove all hardcoded CSS and just leave the hex color codes and then have a bot replace every instances of {{CollegePrimaryColor|Tulsa}}
with background:{{CollegePrimaryColor|Tulsa}}
and {{CollegeSecondaryColor|Tulsa}}
with color:{{CollegeSecondaryColor|Tulsa}}
.—
NMajdan•
talk
15:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
{{CollegePrimaryColor
→ background: #{{CollegePrimaryHex
{{CollegeSecondaryColor
→ color: #{{CollegeSecondaryHex
Whilst disambiguating Robert Hodge, I came across a quarterback for the Colorado Buffaloes, who I have included in the dab page as Robert Hodge (American football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't know enough about the subject to assess whether he is notable, but may be someone here might like to take a look and possibly create a stub article if appropriate. He is listed in the template {{ ColoradoBuffaloesQuarterbacks}}.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard of Wikipedia Books before (outside of the link in the print/export box) but I stumbled across them tonight. Might be something to look into for off-season work. Check out Category:Wikipedia:Books on sports.— NMajdan• talk 03:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that templates such as Template:2009-10 Big Ten football teams that list the team seasons of a conference for a given year aren't really needed if we have a standings template for that conference year, e.g. the analogous Template:2009 Big Ten football standings, that provides all the same links and conveys additional information as well, i.e. the records, standings, championships. What do others think? Jweiss11 ( talk) 07:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we need a template for conference awards and honors? Alternatively, a new section could be added at the bottom of Template:College Football Awards. I can only find Big Ten Conference football individual honors and Big East Conference football awards using Category:College football awards. I am not sure if no other conferences have pages or if they are just not categorized.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 15:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A new section in the existing Template:College Football Awards sounds like a good idea, but it probably makes sense to build out the pages for the other FBS conference awards, or at least the other four BCS conferences, first. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have requested a bot that would go through various templates and replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) in certain parameters. Any other suggestions, approval or even disapproval would be appreciated. Also, if I missed any template, please add it to the list on the Bot request page. Thanks.— NMajdan• talk 16:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I needed one for a list I was making because I was too lazy to do the math myself, so I created a template to do it for me (that probably took 5x as long as it would've taken me to just do the math myself, go figure). Its there if anyone else needs it. {{ Winning percentage}}.— NMajdan• talk 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Instead of having 13 different nav templates for this FBS season – one for each of the 11 FBS conferences ( such as this), one that links to each conference season, and one for the bowls – I've taken the liberty of creating one central template that navigates the entire season. I left it here in my sandbox so everyone can check it out first. What does everyone think of just redirecting all of the various 2009–10 season templates to this or a similar, comprehensive nav template? Other sports WikiProjects have created nav templates this large, such as Template:2009–10 in English football and many other large soccer-related templates. However, I was thinking that one way to condense the CFB season template would be to eliminate team nicknames and leave only the school name to display. JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
So it doesn't look like our popular pages listing got created for this month. We'll definitely get it next month. In the meantime, you can see the 100 most popular CFB articles in December here (updated daily). That should suffice for this month. This highest article that is actually CFB-related (as opposed to NFL or other former players/coaches) is Bobby Bowden. The highest ranked currently active player is...drum roll please... Tim Tebow.— NMajdan• talk 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I created a roster template for college basketball articles (like this) based on a similar template for NBA articles. I really liked the functionality that allowed you to sort by various attributes. I was thinking about bringing this over to the CFB world but the number of players on a team was definitely a hurdle. I knew I couldn't have each player on one row and so I knew I couldn't have as much info about each player (no height/weight, home town, etc). But then how best to break up the columns. I thought about leaving the structure the way we do it now where we pretty much break it up by each position. But that would be too difficult to code. So I figured the easiest way to break it up would be offensive players, defensive players, and special teams (obviously the latter column would be incredibly short compared to the other two). So, what we lose in dropping the numerous separate categories, we regain with the ability to sort by position. Then I had to figure out how to code this multi-column list as it couldn't be done the same way as the CBB template.
So, I think I got it all finished now. I have used the new template in the 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team article, so check it out and let me know what you think. I have parameterized the year column so it can be dropped and used in an NFL article (I'll let the NFL project know later). I will work on the help documentation tomorrow but you can get a good feel for how it works by looking at the example above. I think it ended up a little longer than the old format, but again, I love having the ability to sort (I did compact it a little to save a bit on vertical space).
— NMajdan• talk 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just coming to this discussion after (oops) creating my own template which I'm testing on 2009 Central Michigan Chippewas football team. This template ({{ NCAAFootballTeamRoster}} is based on the existing bare html and the roster templates used for professional baseball (e.g. {{ MLB roster}}). Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I am writing the Tai Streets article and realize it would be good if Bowl games had a link like {{ cfb link}} that would link to the general bowl game article until the specific year article is created.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is discord among the editors of Brandon Graham about how to discribe his All-American Status in his infobox. The disagreement is between whether it should say
According to the five lists that are recognized by the NCAA he is a consensus second team All-American with no first team recognition. His only first team recognitions are by "unofficial" lists that do not count towards consensus or unanimous AA status. I feel it provides disinformation to the reader to describe a consensus second team player with no official first team recognition as "First-team All-American". Opinions welcome.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which (if any) of you may have the {{ Heisman Trophy}} template on your watchlist, but I just made a suggestion on the talk page and would like some feedback (either here or there). :) – Latics ( talk) 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads-up I nominated 2000 Sugar Bowl for Today's Featured Article for January 4, the ten-year anniversary of the game. I thought this especially appropriate since Bobby Bowden is retiring three days earlier. The request can be found here. – Grondemar 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion (collapsed)
|
---|
MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. Suggestion: MWC to auto-bid and national championship game selection: Boise State, or Tulsa + Houston; Colorado and Iowa State/Kansas State; Washington State? MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. If Boise State joins, the MWC should also consider extending an invitation to Washington State University. WSU's program is in the dumps; WSU is also closer in size and culture to the Mountain West schools than the Coastal and California schools. Its incentive would be similar to the Big 12 North schools. The addition of one or two of these schools would add significant depth and legitimacy to the conference, filling out the middle of the 'pack'. Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State
Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses.Mwcadv (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State
Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses. Mwcadv ( talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwcadv ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
|
I have begun a little overhaul of the above list as the current list is a little messy and doesn't sort correctly. This was discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page. I'm doing several things in this overhaul, including verifying the numbers that we currently have are either accurate, up-to-date and/or verified by the source (I've already found several discrepancies). Also, I'm archiving the sources and switching to LDR reference format. At my current pace, I'll have the list ready to go in 2011, so any help would be appreciated. With the season almost over, I'm sure we'll all have a bit more time to devote to these articles. The development page for the list is here: Talk:List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiums/Dev.— NMajdan• talk 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that Brian Kelly (American football coach) be moved, because I believe this article is the primary topic for "Brian Kelly." I would appreciate the comments of my fellow editors on its discussion page. Thank you in advance. -- Pgp688 ( talk) 11:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Not wanting to get in a revert war, I'm bringing this here. In light of Leach's suspension from Tech, another editor added the DC as the head coach at Template:Big 12 Conference head football coaches. I feel that Leach is still the official head coach as he has not been fired, but suspended. I reverted the change to the template, restoring Leach as the coach but the editor reverted it back. What are the thoughts of others on this issue?— NMajdan• talk 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject College football to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
(I asked this question over on WP:Reference desk/Entertainment, but I thought I'd also ask over here since that RefDesk seems rather music-dominated, and there might be more people knowledgeable about college football on this WikiProject talk page.)
Why is the state of New York so bad at college football? This result is surprising considering that New York has at least two strong reasons to be good at college football:
First, American football is certainly a very popular sport in New York. Consider that it has not one or two but three professional teams: the New York Giants, the New York Jets, and the Buffalo Bills.
Second, New York has the third-highest population of any state in the United States, so there should be a large pool of high school players from which New York colleges can recruit. Consider that almost all the other high-population states have historically elite or near-elite college football programs (this list is descending by population):
Who does New York have? The Syracuse Orange? The Army Black Knights? The Buffalo Bulls? Even if we include New Jersey (as right next door to NYC and where the Giants and Jets are actually based), we only get the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Putting it charitably, these are not exactly elite football programs. So why is New York so bad at college football, considering that they should have popularity and population advantages over most other states?
I can account for Army's weakness -- being a military academy makes for stringent admission standards which make it difficult to recruit an elite football team. But the question is why New York doesn't have elite state university system football programs like other high-population states do.
— Lowellian ( reply) 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Colege basketball has a series of American college basketball Consensus All-American templates. I was going to make one for the 2009 College Football All-America Team. Is there a reason why we do not have such templates?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the purpose of 2010 Kentucky Wildcats football team is. It seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTDIR. Others, like 2010 Florida Gators football team seem more developed, but still not much more than a bunch of near-blank tables. My main issue is, is there consensus to create such articles before the season begins? I would like to know whether it would be appropriate to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2010 NC State Wolfpack football team and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2010 South Carolina Gamecocks football team? Thanks, fetch comms ☛ 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Jweiss11 ( talk · contribs) has been creating an article for, as far as I can tell, every team fielded by Michigan in history, e.g. 1906 Michigan Wolverines football team, 1908 Michigan Wolverines football team, etc. I recognize that my personal idea of notability in the realm of bands and sports is somewhat more limited than most people's, but this seems like overkill. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists; unless specific rosters had lasting notability (e.g. won a high profile championship), I'm not seeing the justification for these articles. — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 18:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Obamafan70 just created College Football Performance Awards. Anyone ever heard of these awards? Because I didn't. -- bender235 ( talk) 18:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Was there ever a decision not to have separate year articles for the All-star games such as the 2010 East-West Shrine Game and 2010 Senior Bowl. Many places link to the more generic East-West Shrine Game and Senior Bowl, while linking all other bowls to individual games.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
After creating the peer review request several days ago with no feedback, I figured I would add it here. I've added a peer review request which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Alabama Crimson Tide football/archive1. Any commentary is appreciated. Thanks all. :) – Latics ( talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see point spread format confusion in the bowl game articles and some reversions and edit wars. Users are being directed to this discussion, with nothing started yet. The example in the Template:Infobox_NCAA_football_single_game shows "WLSU favored by 2.5 points" as the example. Is there confusion being created by having to refer to the sports betting article just to understand a stat that would seem simpler to others? The example shown is clear enough to both those who make book and those who do not. Although, it may seem to simplistic to those who know betting lines. Also, is just the spread sufficient, or do over and under and other lines belong too? There seems to be some references needed too, but what organization is the supreme authority in gathering the betting lines legal or otherwise? Is someone collecting the consensus legal books, and at what point, right before game time? Thanks much, Group29 ( talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Jrcla2 has been removing Category:College football coaches from all articles on college coaches, including coaches that have no other subcategory. This has resulted in many coaches, such as Bruce Young, having only a stub category and a living people category. Opinions would be appreciated at Category talk:College football coaches. If there is a better talk page for notification on a discussion on this, please let me know. Thanks, -- Baron Larf 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Oklahoma Sooners football article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My review is here. I have found problems with the article that will require work to maintain its GA status. I have placed the article on hold and I am notifying all interested editors and projects. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 17:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone help me out filling in the missing starting quarterbacks for Template:NUQuarterback? I have the quarterbacks from now to 1996 and a few before 1996, but I need some help. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here ( Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 2) regarding the naming of college football season categories. I'd appreciated input from CFB project participants. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 15:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Schwender and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Larsen to participate in current active deletion discussions.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class college football articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about coaches such as Bobby Bowden. I think we could add a column in our project active participant lists for someone who would be willing to coach or mentor new project members. Further, it would be a good idea to find a way to "assign a mentor" to each new member. Comments?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Archive 7 [8], there is a discussion about Odds, or the point spread format in the football game templates. No consensus had been reached. But a slow edit war has been going on in 2010 bowl game articles between User:Bband11th (who favors X team by n) and User:X96lee15 (who favors X Team -n). See the example at 2009 EagleBank Bowl. Group29 ( talk) 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In the book The College Football Handicapper: How to Beat the Spread in College Football by Bill Bravenec, the author uses both forms. One example has both forms in the same sentence on page 12, "The game opened with Minnesota favored by 14, but Minnesota was bet up to -17 by game time..." Group29 ( talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been debating with folks at WP:HOCKEY about navboxes. Can you please make sure that I am representing the college football position on the policy User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue correctly.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think All conference should copy the 2010 NFL Draft format and relevant info like I did at 2009_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#2010_NFL_Draft.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
Can someone with more patience, time, and interest please check out Bobby Bowden National Collegiate Coach of the Year Award? The article has some severe style and content issues and the editor probably needs to be blocked for a username violation and warned about COI. Thanks! -- ElKevbo ( talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a really bad article. Most of the citations aren't really citations -- they just go to general webgpages like the homepage for SEC baseball. This should be the definition of stub-class, as far as I'm concerned. 166.82.82.98 ( talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I am looking at attacking template clutter. One thing I am thinking about is merging all templates that recognize the same honor. E.g., how about
Rather than {{Heisman Trophy}} {{Maxwell Award}} {{AP Players of the Year}} {{Archie Griffin Award}} {{Walter Camp Award}} {{Chic Harley Award}} {{Sporting News College Football Player of the Year}} or
Rather than {{Sammy Baugh Trophy}} {{Davey O'Brien Award}} {{Manning Award}} {{College Football Quarterback of the Year}} {{Johnny Unitas Award}} Thoughts?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a collape feature above and a redesigned format by decade below:
For someone like Kerry Collins who only won one award, both formats could automatically open to that one like below
Here's an example for such an opt in template:
User:Amalthea/sandbox/CFPlayer of the year (optin)
Uses kind of a hack to rename the template parameters for the navbox groups, which makes them unrecgnizable by the wrapper, and thus hidden. Collapsing logic can then probably be removed.
Amalthea
15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Think I got it. what do you think about this? (Bear in mind, this is all one template with different calls; see the wikicode), (changed to nowiki as these were causing issues with other templates on this talk page): {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|heisman=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|waltercamp=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|ap=yes|heisman=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|heisman=yes|waltercamp=yes|griffin=yes}} {{User:Nmajdan/Test2|ap=yes|harley=yes|tsn=yes}} With this, you can explicitly call only the awards that the subject of the article won. One template would serve all players of the year and you wouldn't have to have a list on the subject's article that they didn't win. And, you don't have to break it down by decade.— NMajdan• talk 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A deletion review has been proposed for Directional Michigan. Feel free to participate in the discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a really odd case because Directional Michigan is used as a derogatory term, particularly by the ESPN College Football Live Crew. Dan LeFevour hopefully puts this to rest in the coming years. Also, Central Michigan beating Big Ten teams more regularly can only help distinguish them.
Are these awards notable enough to deserve a prominent spot in certain players lead section (like Dez Bryant, Dennis Pitta)? User:Obamafan70 keeps adding those, but he seems to be in a WP:COI situation, as his contributions to Wikipedia indicate some sort of affiliation to CFPA (it's basically a single-purpose account to spread those awards everywhere on Wikipedia). -- bender235 ( talk) 22:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You clearly ignored the following 4 articles: http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/011210aaa.html http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/092909aaa.html http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/091409aaa.html http://www.okstate.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/060909aaa.html
You also ignored the 2 articles about Dennis Pitta: http://www.byucougars.com/Filing.jsp?ID=12782 http://www.byucougars.com/Filing.jsp?ID=12742
The program is covered by the AP here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-01-11-3700403542_x.htm
Bender235 and Yankees10 appear to be the ones with conflicts of interest. Perhaps they work for the Mackey Award.
>>They are covered in the Pitta profile: http://www.byucougars.com/Profile.jsp?ID=2086 under 2009. They aren't covered in the Bryant profile because it hasn't been updated since December 2007, before he won all those awards. Then again you could just watch the presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg8Wjbn1s34&feature=channel ....video has over 3,500 views. Obamafan70 ( talk) 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The notability of an award is certainly based upon many factors. Some of the criteria should include:
1) National media attention 2) University press releases, etc. 3) Level of social media 4) Website traffic/audience size, etc. 5) Longevity of award's existence 6) Sponsorship name (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, etc.) 7) Academic/governmental respect/recognition 8) Respect from coaches, players, etc..
Your criticism of the notability of CFPA seems to be only centered around (5) or possibly (6). It's pretty clear that CFPA has national media attention, university endorsement, praise from coaches, etc.. And with the audience size of 550,000+, I don't know how you could possibly maintain that it's not notable, unless you had some sort of pre-existing bias against new football programs. I mean come on -- there were presentations at both Texas and Alabama, the BCS title participants -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIkNME4Z_Ik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0aH62LKkw&feature=channel Obamafan70 ( talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Take the discussion to WP:3O, WP:NPOV/N or WP:RFC.— NMajdan• talk 15:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There are about 3 or 4 different issues at play here, brought up by numerous parties. I think there are some definite equivocations here and possibly even quote mining.
(1) Is a CFPA trophy equally notable to the Heisman Trophy? I think any sensible person would agree that the Heisman Trophy is a transcendent award. It's like winning an Oscar or Grammy as people outside the domain of interest often know who has won the award. Universities pay millions of dollars to advertise their candidates and build full-fledged campaigns to promote them throughout national and local media. The Heisman has inspired iconic displays, rap music, and even film. In fact, a sizable minority of the public probably even cares more about who wins the Heisman than the actual US presidency. And to clarify, I've never suggested that a CFPA trophy was equally notable to the Heisman.
(2) What is the actual criteria for award notability? This is pretty interesting question as there are many awards in college football. I listed what I think are pretty good criteria above. I have not attempted to weigh them, describe them, or even specify how they could measured. A few brief points--
(3)Is CFPA as notable as the Doak Walker, Ray Guy, Lou Groza, Maxwell? I think this is wholly debatable. Certainly, the Doak Walker, et al have been around longer, but we're also talking about an entire system of awards (22), which had a cumulative audience over 500,000 last year. And the program has 5 special teams awards, including the only punt returner and kickoff returner awards. Also, the audience is basically on par with the audience of all 5 BCS games combined. We're talking about a company with high level endorsements, including someone from the NSA. These are the type of people upon whom lives depend on a daily basis. You can't say either of those things about the traditional awards, for lack of better words. I would possibly concede that CFPA is less notable than say, the Davey O' Brien Award, but I think it's pretty much open terrain here.
(4) What awards are notable for a header? This is closely linked with (3) and also with the recommended criteria. Awards are important because they often demonstrate the notability of the subject. In particular, if we are talking about a freshman player like LaMichael James, then there is likely some debate about whether or not he meets WP:ATHLETE. Mentioning that he won the CFPA Freshman trophy and was Pac-10 Freshman of the Year is valuable for a lead, in my opinion, to demonstrate his legitimacy for inclusion on Wikipedia. Of course, one of the problems here is that it is going to be very difficult to achieve agreement on (4) with the entire Wikipedia community (practically speaking). It would be nice to see athlete articles adopt similar standards across the board for headers. Obamafan70 ( talk) 17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
As a Sooner fan in Dallas, originally from Tulsa, I've been hearing about the Performance Awards program since 2008. It's covered on a weekly basis by the Tulsa World and Oklahoman, since so many players from OU, Ok State, and Tulsa win their weekly honors. Broyles was covered on KTUL, the local ABC affiliate when he won the punt returner of the week award against Ok State. Of course, since it's new, it means different things to different people. Ok State and UT have them on display in their trophy cases. The Dez Bryant trophy is in a case right next to the Barry Sanders Heisman. OU just won a Heisman, so we could care less. 166.82.82.98 ( talk) 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In my infancy with college football articles, I created a Michigan team template that, with the benefit of 2 years of hindsight, I think is WAY too long. TonyTheTiger has suggested that the "Important Figures" section is too subjective, and I agree. As part of any revamping, I'm inclined to eliminate that section. Here's how it looks now:
Before revamping it, I thought I'd raise the question here as to what others in the project think are the key components to include in a team template. I don't think we need complete uniformity in how the team templates are done, but some discussion of key elements and consistency is a good idea. Here are some samples of what others have done:
I agree with Tony that "Important Figures" is too subjective, but I'd be interested to know which other elements people think should/should not be included. My preliminary views are noted in italics. Consensus All-Americans? Link to a list rather than putting all the names in the template College Football HOF inductees? Yes, these individuals have been recognized as all-time greats at the collegiate level University athletic hall of fame inductees? Link to a list rather than putting all the names in the template Former or current NFL players? Link to a list rather than putting all the names in the template Players with numbers retired by the University? Yes, same rationale as College Football Hall of Fame Lore/Culture? Undecided. Pretty subjective stuff, and I'm not sure how to limit what's in it, but lore is such an integral part of the college game Rivalries? Probably fine Heisman Trophy winners? Undecided National championships? Yes Conference championships? Undecided Seasons? I think so, and then we could eliminate separate templates that do the same thing. Historic listing of home fields? I don't think so. I'd just list the current home stadium as is done in most templates Historic overall win-loss record? Undecided Current coaching staff? Yes Starting quarterbacks? No Input from others appreciated. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 92900/1000000 Post-expand include size: 1270237/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 643262/2048000 bytes Expensive parser function count: 0/500