![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
On November 20, after Nebraska suffered a difficult loss to Texas A&M, Nebraska DC Carl Pelini somehow took offense at something a local reporter/photographer did, rushed up to him and knocked the camera out of his hand, apparently damaging the camera. Photographic evidence of the incident exists. While regrettable and indefensible, I question whether a one-off incident of this nature belongs in a WP article. At what point does an article include or not include incidents from specific games? I mean, I know there is a threshold, but don't really think this meets it. I bring it up because user Macae ( talk) (a Texas Aggies fan as apparent from his talk page) continues to put this blurb in the Pelini article despite several other parties repeatedly removing it. I myself removed it once because I thought it was mostly inflammatory, but have since just observed. It is no secret that I am a Nebraska homer, so am seeking thoughts here from relatively unbiased parties. I am fairly confident that bringing it up on the talk page or directly with Macae (homer to homer) would probably not be productive. Is he flaming or am I being oversensitive? Fjbfour ( talk) 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Per Paulmcdonald's comments about notability above, do we have any standards in place for assistants who have never been head coaches? Guys like Norm Chow and Jerry Sandusky seem to be notable for sure as they have garnered plenty of media coverage including consideration for head coaching positions. I created an article a few months ago for Fred Jackson (American football coach), who's the most tenured member of the Michigan staff, having been with the team since 1992. User:Cbl62 has created some very nice articles for other Michigan assistants like Milan Vooletich. Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I looked it up on the wikipedia page on "Quarterback U" where it said nothing about the Washington Huskies had been widely considered as a "quarterback u" in any period of time. I think either we need a citation from someone who claimed Washington football as a quarterbacks-productive school. 13:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.223.158 ( talk)
I'm a little surprised at the lack of Capital One Bowl games history. I noticed how many redlinks there are on {{ Capital One Bowl}}. I'm not a die hard college football fan, but are the C.O.B. and its previously named Tangerine Bowls not important bowl games? Jrcla2 ( talk) 14:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi WP:CFB, thanks to some of you for starting the college basketball coach navbox tenures and full names transition. Before we go any further, I think there's one minor issue that needs to be worked out before proceeding. I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Coaching tenures for navboxes. Thanks! Jrcla2 ( talk) 18:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A bunch of us here have implemented some changes regarding succession boxes and nav boxes for college football coaches. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Nav boxes and succession boxes for coaches for a summary, plus a discussion about rolling these out to NFL coaches. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Two FCS coaching navboxes have been nominated for deletion: Albany Great Danes and Old Dominion Monarchs. If anyone has a history of keeping navboxes around, any input would be appreciated. Geologik ( talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we have categories for current players only? I proposed this one for deletion, and I'm looking for comments from project members. — bender235 ( talk) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Template:AFB Game Box Start, is it possible without an unreasonable amount of work to create the ability to toggle this to show two periods instead of four? Historically, early football games up into the 1900s only had two periods. When creating game summaries for these early games, I have used HTML to emulate the appearance of the template with two periods, as in this example of the 1905 Michigan-Nebraska game:
|
I'd like to be able to convert these to templates so that they will be carried along with any future template formatting changes. Is this possible? Anyone up to it? Maybe it's time for me to learn how to work on templates... Fjbfour ( talk) 17:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Can anyone verify if Bill Thomas (American football) is the same person as Bill Thomas (football coach)? It strikes me that these two are probably one in the same. If they are then the latter should be merged with the former. Jrcla2 ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
What are this WikiProject's guidelines on templates like this? At WP:CBBALL we have a strict no–"current" anything except for current head coaches of a particular Division I conference. I feel like this Auburn template shouldn't exist, but I don't know. Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There is more than one variety of roster format out there. I've been using a modified version of the
wikimarkup one used at 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team (my mod is to simplify the work by listing all players alphabetically by last name instead of sorting by position). Before bringing this topic up, I did some searching of the talk archives and turned up two existing templates suitable for NCAA football rosters:
Template:American football roster/Player (seen
here), and
Template:NCAAplayer (seen
here). I personally prefer the roster/Player one, as it also includes the ability to integrate the coaching staff with it. In both cases, I find the presence of the graphic redshirt (
) visually distracting and unnecessary. I think I know just enough about templates to add to roster/Player the ability to show redshirt freshmen as "RFr" and forgo the graphic (it is an on/off toggle). Anyway, are there others to consider? Refinements to be made? Consensus to be found? It would be nice to nail this down and have it settled, like we did for the HFC navboxes.
Fjbfour (
talk) 04:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You guys might want to keep a very close eye on User:DragoLink08 ( talk / contribs). He has been going around and screwing up tons of college football and NFL-related color schemes. I don't think he's doing it on purpose, but sometimes the editors with the best intentions who go and make sweeping, non-consensus changes are the most dangerous kind. Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone why know this page is effectively assessed as a Good Article, i.e. it is categorized under Category:GA-Class college football articles. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:CurrentAuburnFBCoaches has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Jrcla2 (
talk) 02:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang! There's been some changes in several of the football coach navboxes lately. An editor is added expanded information to the boxes, showing not just the original last name, but also the first name and the period of coaching.
Example of differences:
I believe that it is important that we have uniform structures for all the coach navboxes. I see that there are both advantages and disadvantages to making this change. So my questions are the following:
Let's get everyone involved in this discussion... I think it's critical.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, per Fjbfour's concerns above regarding an underlying template solution, Template:CFB Yearly Record Subhead employs logic that can be replicated to handle single-year and present tenures. Another parameter to denote interim tenures could be added. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, guys, did we ever reach a conclusion on this? It seemed like we were VERY CLOSE to making a decision, or at least narrowing the options, and then got sidetracked on the "dagger" doo-hickey thingamabob. As things presently stand, I support the last variation espoused by Jweiss, the current Western Michigan Broncos navbox, with first and last names in unbolded font and the terms of service in small font. That having been said, why don't we post the five or six major alternatives, and start taking a vote of the project members to reach a consensus. I would suggest that we open a series of voting rounds to last a week each, and after each round, drop the alternative receiving the fewest votes until we have a winner. My father always said: "Son, don't start a job unless you intend to finish it." Let's finish the drill, guys. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a proponent of succession boxes and use them quite broadly in articles. I have numerous WP:FA and WP:GA that employ them such as Tyrone Wheatley, Brandon Graham (American football), Evan Turner, to name a few. Cbl62 has deleted several from Denard Robinson and Jweiss11 has deleted one from Jonas Mouton. Now at Talk:Denard Robinson/GA2, the decision seems to have been made to keep most of them out. Can someone tell me what the current policy is on succession boxes and why the following types of succession boxes are considered clutter.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I'll take a crack at explaining the evolving Big Picture. As a project, we are replacing all coach succession boxes with new enhanced navboxes that include the first name, the last name and years of service for every coach listed in the navboxes. The succession boxes for every Division I FBS coach have already been deleted; most of those for FCS and lower division coaches have been deleted and the remaining work is in progress. We are doing this in conjunction with WP College basketball, where the navbox enhancements are now in progress. Major college football awards, such as the Heisman, Maxwell, consensus All-American selections, etc., already have navboxes with names and dates, and the old succession boxes are being deleted as redundant. Succession boxes for starting positions, team statistical leaders, team awards, conference statistical leaders and minor conference awards are being deleted outright without navbox replacements. I believe that major conference awards (e.g., POY) are being considered on a case-by-case notability basis.
Bottom line: it is the evolving consensus of both WP:CFB and WP:CBB that succession boxes should be replaced with enhanced navboxes when appropriate, and removed in virtually all cases. To the extent that the succession boxes of other WikiProjects overlap with CBB and CFB articles, such as that for a football player who later became a U.S. Senator, we will not remove the other project's succession box (e.g. political office succession boxes) from CBB and CFB articles. Succession boxes for college basketball and football (and presumably other college sports, too) are getting whacked, however. FYI, we have already begun the discussion with WP:NFL to upgrade the NFL coach navboxes and remove the NFL succession boxes, too. Succession boxes are rapidly becoming an endangered species in these parts. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What types of succession boxes can be kept at the collegiate level? Here is one that I am now unsure about from Freddy Barnes.
Tony, I would suggest that the Division I FBS single-season record should be featured in the text and linked to the Division I FBS records page. (If we don't have one, we should: page creation opportunity, Tony!) The MAC record should be mentioned in text. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I just peeked at the Tyrone Wheatley article. The Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year is probably worthy of a navbox that lists all recipients of the award with the years awarded. The other two succession boxes are for conference statistical leaders, and, IMO, should be featured in the text. Mine is only one opinion, however; let's get some of the other guys to weigh in on this, so I'm not making pronouncements that aren't in keeping with what everyone else may be thinking. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang! I'm announcing TODAY (using all the WikiAuthority that I have, which of course is none) that our project needs to have a College Football Hall of Fame Cleanup Drive! I thought of it when I checked in on the change Jrcla2 made to Percy Langdon Wendell (it's in my watchlist) and realized that here is an article about a College Football Hall of Fame player and coach, but the article does not look like a "Hall of Fame" player/coach at all. We've got lots of pages like this.
So I'm looking for volunteers to pitch in. The cleanup drive main page is Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/College Football Hall of Fame. Anyone is welcome to join and pitch in!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Brady Hoke brought up the question whether a coach's article should mention that he wasn't a programm's first choice, or any kind of similar "controversy". Should Hoke's article mention that he was the school's third option, after Harbaugh and Miles? Similar to Pete Carroll's article, that reports that he wasn't USC's first option in 2000. Or Gene Chizik's article, that states that a number of Auburn people supported the hiring of Turner Gill. (This, of course, not offsets WP:V. I'm only talking about confirmed and well-sourced information.) — bender235 ( talk) 12:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If no reliable sources state another coach was actually offered the job or in serious discussions, I would lean towards not including it, as it seems to be too speculative. If there was another offer according to an RS, I think it could be included provided that it was worded neutrally. Strikehold ( talk) 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:MountaineersRunningbacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Jrcla2 (
talk) 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
...But at least this one isn't for head coaches. I noticed there's no real consistency for the team navboxes located in Category:American college football team navigational boxes. It's a minor issue as most of them are roughly the same, but for the sake of consistency I was wondering if these all needed to be standardized in some way. Jrcla2 ( talk) 13:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering if we had standards about using archaic names of schools in schedule tables for season pages. I'm making the pages for the early USC seasons, and the Trojans often played schools that went by a different name at the time including Oregon Agricultural for Oregon State and Throop University for Cal Tech. I've been referring to OSU as Oregon Agricultural based on the information in the season table on Oregon State Beavers football, and kept all references to Cal Tech as Cal Tech, simply because I haven't yet found reliable info on when the college went by its several names. First of all I feel I should keep it consistent, but I was also wondering if there was a standard we were sticking to around here. ― El Cid ∴ ∵ 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Now that we've put the coach succession box/nav box issue to rest and are well on our way to brighter pastures in that field, I want to tackle a related issue about categories. Sometime in 2009, an editor, who is now sanctioned against category editing, introduced a slew of head coaching categories as subcategories of coaching categories, e.g. Category:Michigan Wolverines football head coaches sub-categorized under Category:Michigan Wolverines football coaches. For the most part, these were created only for FBS programs; there a few others in existence for lower divisions.
This handiwork introduced some problems:
What we've been living with is a multi-dimensional mess. Many of the category transclusions, I believe, actually root back to any earlier day when the simple coaching categories were inappropriately tucked into the head coaching nav boxes, as is still the case for some lower division nav boxes. As a sidearm of the recent nav box upgrade and succession box purge effort, these transclusions are being removed and coaching categories are being properly placed onto the articles themselves, if they were missing. Killing the transclusions from the templates did away with vast majority of head coach categorizations, but we've never had any consistency with them. Sometimes the head coaching categories were on the article too (in many cases courtesy of yours truly) and thus survived the transclusion purge. I'm in the process of cleaning out these surviving head coach categorizations to get us back to a clean slate...and catching flack for it from this Oregon dude spying on the Willamette categories.
From here, with our new clean slate: we need to decide if we support the head coach categories, and, if so, which of the following three schemes we go with:
Frankly, I think these head coach categories open up a can of worms and we're better off without them. If we decide to go with no head coach categories, the following boilerplate template describing the scope of the coach categories should work well: Template:College football coach by team category description; see Category:Michigan Wolverines football coaches for an example in practice. If we go with head coaching categories, we could created similar instructive boilerplates to describe the chosen scheme.
Thoughts? Jweiss11 ( talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Look through the individual team categories of the NFL Category:National Football League coaches by team, they all have separate "sub" categories for head coaches although those who have also served as assistants are included in both categories. Example: Jason Garrett and Dave Campo are in both listed in Category:Dallas Cowboys head coaches and Category:Dallas Cowboys coaches. That being said, I think option #3 listed above makes the most sense, head coaches would be better organized with a separate category similar to the NFL teams superseding the "parent" category. NorthTechsan ( talk) 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus is for option 0, with which we eliminate the head coach categories. The next step is to open up a CFD for deletion/up-merging for the categories. I'll post again here when that discussion is opened up. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 27#College basketball categories and weigh in on the proposal. Thanks! Jrcla2 ( talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
You are cordially invited to join the newly-proposed WikiProject University of Connecticut, designed to promote collaboration and improvement on UConn-related articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, the following articles are proposed to be within the new WikiProject's scope:
Currently no one WikiProject covers all UConn-related content:
WikiProject University of Connecticut, when created, will be a centralized location to coordinate monitoring and improvement of UConn-related articles. To comment on the proposed creation of the new WikiProject University of Connecticut, click here. To join the proposed WikiProject, click here, as the membership list is transcluded directly on the proposal page. Thank you for your attention, and GO HUSKIES! – Grondemar |
– Grondemar 01:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Reminder there are several AFD discussion related to football at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football that could use some review and comments.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You guys are great at research, especially when it comes to old-time college football head coaches. I stumbled upon Henry Otis Pratt while upgrading {{ Cincinnati Bearcats basketball coach navbox}} today. His first, middle and last names are all exactly the same as the Cincinnati men's basketball and football head coach during the 1901–1902 school year. The date of birth and date of death indicate that he could potentially be the same person as the head coach of those sports, but I haven't been able to find any sources to confirm it.
It seems like a long-shot (IMO) that someone who shares that exact full name and geographic location (generally speaking, Iowa and southwest Ohio aren't too far apart) wouldn't be the same person. Can you guys help me out? Jrcla2 ( talk) 18:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've put up an article at 1939 Fordham vs. Waynesburg football game that could use some additional research. As a game it wasn't much, but it was the first televised football game. Could be a DYK candidate if we move fast.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with college football. But, I was hoping someone out there knows how to set up WikiProjects. Tonight I created Category:Category-Class college basketball articles and Category:Template-Class college basketball articles because I thought it was ridiculous to have thousands of NA-class articles when most of them fall under one of those two aforementioned categories. However, neither category has any items in them, despite the fact that I know I've personally tagged hundreds of categories and templates as such. Am I missing something? Did I not set it up properly? Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for this, but I have a similar issue with Category:Book-Class NBA articles. Nothing shows up even though I created Template:WikiProject National Basketball Association/css. Can you help me? Thanks— Chris! c/ t 02:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NAIA to create a related WikiProject. Please consider reading the proposal and commenting at that page. Alternatives include joining an existing related project (such as this one) or creating a WP:TASKFORCE under a related project with a larger scope. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand Wikipedia's fair use policies recommend uploading a low resolution image, but the Miami RedHawks logo is really low quality. Would it be acceptable to upload a slightly higher resolution image, or is this the only resolution that's allowed? It seems really kind of grainy... Nomader ( Talk) 06:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
With all of the conference moves coming up, I've got a bit of a conundrum when it comes to uniform file names. For example, Colorado's 1930s throwback worn in 2009 will probably not be worn again, so should it be renamed to reflect the conference change when Colorado moves to the Pac-12? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 09:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since it has no bearing on the project as a whole, I've begun updating my page to reflect the conference changes, but I'm not sure if I should start changing the file names now. The season is over, so I'm leaning towards making the moves, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you guys think? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to come back here to discuss the uniform image naming a bit more. Specifically, I don't think the current procedure of using a single filename (e.g. File:Pac-12-Uniform-UCLA.png) for the current uni and then changing the image at that location each time a team makes a change is a good practice. I think a better way to deal with this would be to simply add each new uni at a new location (for example, if UCLA starts a new uni in 2011, it might be at File:Pac-12-Uniform-UCLA-2011.png). That way the edit history and description for each uniform iteration would remain intact, and it would be easier to manage the images' appearance in season articles. cmadler ( talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
After User:Eagle4000 split up the USA Today All-USA high school football team article, I thought about getting rid of the whole article in favor of a format similar to the College All-Americans, with articles for every year (e.g., 2010) to summarize all the different All-America teams. Because besides USA Today, there are a number of notable publishers of All-America teams, like Parade, EA Sports, Rivals, MaxPreps, and probably even more. What are your thoughts? -- bender235 ( talk) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To revitalize this discussion, CBSSports.com has compiled a list of consensus HS All-Americans. I think we should such lists for every class. -- bender235 ( talk) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The fair use rational for File:David M. Nelson.jpg has been disputed, with a claim that the image is being used in "purely decorative fashion" at David M. Nelson. I'm not sure I understand the argument since there are a myriad of copyrighted images or images with unknown copyright of deceased persons used here on Wikipedia in exactly the same way. If the image is being used in "purely decorative fashion", the same would be true for just about every image of a biography subject on Wikipedia. Please comment if you have any insight. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the current standard for notability of college athletes: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes
College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
- Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
- Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
- Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
IMO, this is dramatically, overly restrictive and creates a patchwork. HS recruits can become notable before they play collegiately, regardless of what they subsequently achieve. So if an article wasn't created on the player while in high school, the above stated criteria will skew to upperclassmen, post-college recognition, and large market teams in high profile sports (respectively). I also see problems in team vs individual sports. Any thoughts? Pasadena91 ( talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/March/14 and comment on the discussion on Category:College football coaches first appointed in the 2010s stubs-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A file related to this WikiProject, File:Texas Flag at DKR - North Texas vs Texas 2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion if you would like to participate in the discussion. Johntex\ talk 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone at WP:CFB know that after months of upgrading and lots of lost sleep (on my end, anyway), WikiProject College basketball has 100% finished the Division I coaches' navbox upgrades. We don't really have any D-II and lower navboxes yet (I'm sure in time we will, for now we focus on the big boys).
You guys were making lots of noise about how you would want to try and convince WP:NFL, WP:NBA and maybe even WP:Baseball about doing the same, once the college basketball coaches were finished. Thank God it's over – now I can concentrate on editing I actually want to do... Jrcla2 ( talk) 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. The article writer is only semi-active, so would one of you guys be able to make the changes to get the article to GA? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Watts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Watts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Hey everyone, I'm noticing some issues with Template:Infobox NCAA football single game, specifically with the "date" functionality. Examples of the problem can be seen at the following pages:
The issue may be my inability to enter the fields correctly, but in any case--HELP! :)-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang, here's a new list to check out:
Enjoy!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've got basic coach pages set up for the Franklin & Marshall program. Feel free to dive in and add more details and collaboration!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion underway concerning a college football head coach here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur S. Herman. Please comment if you have a chance. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion currently underway in regards to content at Talk:Andy Dalton (American football) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang! The [ NAIA 2011 Spring Football Poll] is out! Check it for any NAIA teams whose pages you support!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Health issues in American football is currently undergoing an article for deletion discussion. See the discussion here. — Ute in DC ( talk) 07:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1932–36 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams appears to contain a copy-paste error, where the last two years listed are 1930 and 1931 instead of 1935 and 1936. I started to update it from this page but I'm not really familiar with the subject so I didn't get very far. If someone who is more familiar could take a look and maybe fix the article it'd be great. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Template:CollegePrimaryColor and Template:CollegeSecondaryColor are both up for deletion since May 3. Wasn't this someone's project here not too long ago? So far no one has voted either way. Just a heads up. Fjbfour ( talk) 11:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts about the notability of Luke Sniewski? This article appears to have been created by the subject, but he seems borderline notable as there are a fair amount of new stories about him on Google news. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A number of the articles for conference championship games have been moved to include the word "Football" (capitalized) in their title for the purpose of disambiguation, per the editor:
The problem is that the official names of these games do not include the word "Football". A more appropriate qualifier would be a parenthetical "football", but I'm not sure that is needed because the championship games for other sports are framed as tournaments and seem to include the name of their sport in their official titles. It should be noted that the Conference USA Football Championship Game, and the Big Ten Football Championship Game, to be played for the first time this coming season, each include "Football" in their official title, but I have not see an indication of name changes for other conference championship games listed above. Hence, these article moves should all be reverted, unless I am wrong about that last point. Thoughts? Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a college football guy, so I thought I would mention that the subject of this unreferenced stub just recently had a lengthy obituary in The New York Times here if anyone cares to improve the article. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a 'College Athlete Recruit Entry' template in Ramone Moore. It shows height as:
but should be something like:
Weight is shown as:
but should be something like:
The column heading "Weight (lb)" would then become 'Weight' to match the heading "Height". The phrase "Overall Recruiting Rankings:" should be sentence case. I don't know how to edit the template. Does anybody here have the skills to do it? Lightmouse ( talk) 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know enough about the subject to make such an edit. Would anybody like to resolve this? Lightmouse ( talk) 18:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello all,
I've been working on referencing the 2001 Michigan vs. Michigan State football game article over the past week or so, and while I have been able to cite the vast majority of its content, there are a few statements that are still lacking sources. I'm hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me might know where to find proper references for the following (currently unreferenced) statements:
There were also two more minor points that I could not find references for and took out of the article. If anyone can find references for them, they can certainly be put back in:
Any help you are able to provide would be much appreciated!
TFCforever ( talk) 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: There is an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination) project members may be interested in.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I suggest that we keep an eye on the discussion located here: Template talk:University of Central Florida#Coloring. There is an IP user ("125.162.150.88") out of Indonesia who has randomly deleted the black and gold school colors used on several of the University of Central Florida navboxes, and is making the argument that all use of school colors is prohibited/officially discouraged based on his misreading of WP:Deviations. I found the discussion only today when I discovered that the black and gold school colors for the navboxes for UCF, UCF presidents, and UCF sports teams had been removed. (I have reverted these changes.) For those of us who have spent hours and hours working on college sports navboxes, this discussion and related navbox changes certainly bear watching. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone at this WikiProject create Virginia Conference? It's a defunct athletic conference from the 1900s that I don't know anything about, nor can I find anything about (it's pretty impossible finding info on Google when the two most important keywords are "Virginia" and "conference"). I ask this because some of you have great college football resources available, and I'm not sure if this conference pertained to basketball as well. It's the only red link on {{ William & Mary Tribe Football}}, and I'd like to see it blue, if possible. Jrcla2 ( talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please look at Pete Carroll and the edit war that is brewing over there regarding the revocation of USC's 2004 championship. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I was creating the page for the 2010 Connecticut vs. Michigan football game which was on the list of notable games that did not have pages because it said it was the "Largest regular season single game attendance to date". However, when doing research I found this link [1], which says that Soldier Field holds the record with 123,000 in 1927. Wondering how to handle this.
NT1952 ( talk) 17:22, 4 Junes 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.188.158 ( talk)
I just wrote the article on Harold Hess, but while researching it, I have been unable to confirm whether the same person was the Cal Poly coach. I have found contemporary sources that link the Penn State player, USC freshman coach, and Loyola Marymount varsity coach (sometimes called "Bill Hess" here).
However, the only source linking the LMU coach with the Cal Poly coach is the College Football Data Warehouse, which has the occasional tendency to incorrectly conflate coaches. The only other source I can find referencing the Cal Poly coach at all is the Cal Poly media guide which lists him as "H. Hess". Also, the Cal Poly coach's tenure is recorded as 1919-1920, when the USC/LMU coach Hess was playing at Penn State (according to the PSU media guide and numerous contemporary sources).
Doesn't help that almost all of the contemporary references from this era on the West Coast are the Los Angeles Times which is subscription only. Any help would be appreciated, especially if someone has access to the LA Times archives. Strikehold ( talk) 01:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
User:USLcajun85 has been going and blanking college football articles and templates, then copy/pasting their content into "new" pages. Not only has he not tried to gain consensus regarding the name change for the program (which personally, I don't mind the new name change, but it still needs to gain consensus through a discussion first), he's going outside of procedure that would move, or merge, new pages and templates. Here's a list from what I can discern that he's done this to (note: blanked on the left, copied/pasted on the right):
I don't have much empathy for new editors on this particular day, so I'm afraid I'd bite him if I tried to explain why he's wrong for doing all of that. Can someone from the WP message him about the aforementioned concerns? Also, should we just redirect all of his redirects back to the old versions, since those are the ones with edit history? Jrcla2 ( talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, he's gone back and moved them again. At least this time, the move was technically correct (an actual move, rather than his previous copy/paste/blank) and preserved the page histories. By all appearances, he hasn't acknowledged any statements regarding the contested name of the articles. Furthermore, the account is only ten days old, and his contributions have been pretty much exclusively geared towards this name change. Thoughts? De Fault Ryan 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
On this subject, there's no consistent naming scheme for Ragin' Cajuns articles and categories:
Whatever the accepted short name is, it should be applied uniformly to all these and related elements. Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've upgraded Template:Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach navbox both in naming and form per the new standards that came out of the collaboration between WikiProject College football and WikiProject College Basketball. If anyone would like to help out upgrading the other NFL coach navboxes, don't be bashful! Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Fictional Alabama Crimson Tide football players? Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ralph Archer was one of the first group inducted into the University Hall of Fame. During his college days he was captain of the football team and named to the all Kansas football team. After graduation, he took a leave of absence from his job with International Harvester Co. to be temporary coach, while the search for a full time coach was conducted. He returned to IHC and worked his way up through the organization. His final position with IHC was Vice President of Manufacturing at the time of his death in 1957. Ralph Archer Jr. ( talk) 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up (perhaps with an eye towards an RFC) spurred by recent editing at USC Trojans football, 2004 USC Trojans football team, 2005 USC Trojans football team and Pete Carroll. As many editing in this project likely know, USC recently had its 2004 BCS title vacated; this follows an earlier NCAA decision to vacate wins from 2004 & 2005. A dispute has arisen on how to deal with the presentation of win records and other noted achievements in regard to the vacated games. The present dispute centers on USC, but there are ample examples of other programs that have had major NCAA sanctions including vacated wins...inevitably future NCAA rulings will similarly affect other programs. I think this Wikiproject could benefit from a discussion on how to generally handle this sort of information consistently across college football articles.
To illustrate the types of issues involved, college football coaching accomplishments listed at Pete Carroll include winning records before (97–19) and after (83-19) vacated wins, a 34 game winning streak during 2003–05 that includes 14 vacated wins, and 7 consecutive BCS bowl appearances that includes two vacated BCS bowls in the middle of the streak. Edits like this typify how one "side" seems to view the situation: that because official NCAA records have been altered, Wikipedia must similarly expunge or alter its information presentations to fit only NCAA-sanctioned records. I personally find this problematic on multiple levels:
Acknowledging that the NCAA, the governing body of Div I college football, has a reasonable authority to present "official" statistical accounts, I'm perfectly in favor of noting those values. However, where media sources and historical records vary from the NCAA, the NCAA should not get exclusive authority over Wikipedia's coverage.
I personally favor a somewhat nuanced " asterisk"-type general plan in which noted accomplishments later affected by official rulings should be presented as their original information followed by a clear explanatory note on how later developments alter the official and historical view of the presented information. I'd like to hear what other editors in this arena feel about the topic...can a consensus be developed on how to consistently deal with this type of information? — Scien tizzle 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Example for consideration: Here I implemented a footnote system on a list of accomplishments in the Pete Carroll. I worry it may be a bit clunky, but I think it's informative... — Scien tizzle 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, so in my mind there is obviously enough interest here to make a real declaration/descision of sorts for future notice. So what do we decide? I believe everyone agrees that both records should be listed in one form or another (i.e. we shouldn't just have the official record and no other notes), but which do we emphasize? I personally think having both is too bulky and can be confusing (NOTE: I mean side by side. Sorry for the possible confusion. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)), so do we list the official record, or what was actually played. Remember that sanctions are mainly supposed to affect/punish the school in question, and aren't necessarily supposed to be a wholesale revision of the record books. Without to much discussion, could everyone list their personal preference and reasoning. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There's discussion underway at Talk:Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry apropos of this topic. Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the election there's no "official" vote until the results are certified, and after that I think you're stuck with them, but I don't claim to know. Anyhow in the absence of actual decisions to work with, this whole discussion is premature, though I look forward to armwrestling on it when the time comes. (Speaking of premature, can someone look in at Talk:Michigan_–_Ohio_State_football_rivalry#OSU_vacated_victories_.28July_2011.29, toward the bottom, where there is a discussion about the propriety of removing vacated *losses* from the article, based on an ESPN.com blog article (and in the face of a Grant Wahl article cited earlier here))? Thanks - JohnInDC ( talk) 00:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
(Cross-posted in similar substance at
Talk:Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry)
I stumbled across this NCAA document this morning. I highlighted the parts that seemed pertinent to "vacation of wins". I am not sure this is as enlightening as it could be but I offer it up for information and / or discussion. I would note that 1) coaches' all-time records are affected but also 2) none of this real until the NCAA Committee on Infractions says so. The original link is here:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Stats/Statistics+Policies
JohnInDC ( talk) 17:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
We checked with a person in the know at the NCAA, and it was confirmed that, while Alabama does indeed lose their win against Hawaii — provided the sanctions are upheld on appeal — Hawaii will not get to pick that win up. Additionally, the game does not count in any type of series record between the two teams.
posted by John Taylor, NBCSports.com College Football Talk (CFT), July 4, 2009
Now we have an NCAA source (from 2009), speaking on the subject of college football, that confirms what Chris Low posted (also in 2009). From the perspective of the winning team, the vacated win is removed from the winning team's own series record (though JohnInDC rightly points out that an asterisk should be added to note the change). From the perspective of the losing team, nothing changes-- the loss is retained in the losing team's own series record. From the perspective of both teams, the game does not count in the series record between the two teams (again, an asterisk should be added noting the change). Once the NCAA rules, the series record ought to reflect what John Taylor has reported. Levdr1lostpassword ( talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
A forfeit takes a win away and awards it to the losing team both in the single-season and series records. Ole Miss went from a losing season to a winning year in '93 after the NCAA forfeited Bama's 19-14 win over the Rebels. Vacated games can get more confusing. While Alabama will not be credited for 21 wins, neither will the 21 victims in their season records. So while the Tide will be 0-2 in 2005, Tennessee still will have to accept its 5-6 record. The Volunteers will get a break, however, in their series record against Alabama because the '05 game in Tuscaloosa no longer will count.
David Paschall, TimesFreePress.com Sports, June 16, 2009
Levdr1lostpassword ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Since it appears that a) the NCAA has enough answers to fix most potential problems (series records, etc.) and that b) there probably won't ever be enough support for a straight up rejection of the NCAA's versions (which I somewhat support), I propose that we:
Note that I don't exactly agree with all this, but I do think that this is the compromise most likely to be accepted by everyone. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 19:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The NCAA is indeed silent when they don't publish an official policy on a particular question (here, series records), and when journalists and bloggers discussing the subject consistently report only information supplied to them sub rosa, by unnamed sources holding unnamed positions within the organization. It is "official" when the NCAA publishes it, not when information is disseminated from it without the imprimatur of the office, i.e., *un*officially. (You have to ask yourself too whether the three reporters didn't report the name or names of their sources because none of the reporters deemed their sources' names to be pertinent - perhaps - or because the sources wouldn't allow their names to be used, because their views, however well-informed, were not policy that the NCAA had determined to promulgate officially.) Low et al. are probably in fact describing what the NCAA would say, if it did declare an official policy on the subject, but that is not the same as actual official policy. Next. The notion that Low et al. are describing (or reporting, as you will) - that series records *don't* reflect the loss - is inconsistent on its face with the express, written, official NCAA policy that vacated wins don't remove the loss from the opposing team. Series records are nothing more or less the sum of opposing teams wins, losses and ties, and when you write off a W but not an L, they will no longer match. Again back to Lincoln: In some cases the NCAA intends to count a tail as a leg, and in others it doesn't. Fine. But don't try to claim they're "consistent". JohnInDC ( talk) 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We checked with a person in the know at the NCAA, and it was confirmed that, while Alabama does indeed lose their win against Hawaii — provided the sanctions are upheld on appeal — Hawaii will not get to pick that win up. Additionally, the game does not count in any type of series record between the two teams.
I've had several questions from fans wondering what it means for other teams in the SEC now that Alabama has to vacate 21 wins from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons... The short answer is... nothing. Alabama has to give up those wins, but the other teams don't get the wins. And in terms of the series record, it's as if those games were never played.
A forfeit takes a win away and awards it to the losing team both in the single-season and series records. Ole Miss went from a losing season to a winning year in '93 after the NCAA forfeited Bama's 19-14 win over the Rebels. Vacated games can get more confusing. While Alabama will not be credited for 21 wins, neither will the 21 victims in their season records. So while the Tide will be 0-2 in 2005, Tennessee still will have to accept its 5-6 record. The Volunteers will get a break, however, in their series record against Alabama because the '05 game in Tuscaloosa no longer will count.
It sounds like the general consensus is forming...In infoboxes and other overview figures, the official NCAA record should always be presented. In cases for which the NCAA has altered the official record, such as the vacating wins or forfeiting games, an asterisk or footnote providing a succinct explanation of this change and its effects on the relevant records is a viable way of contextualizing these data and should be utilized to the fullest reasonable extent. The article text should fully discuss any such discrepancies, citing relevant sources and clarifying details not suitable for a footnote.
An essay that fully elucidates NCAA recommendations and media norms, such as those discussed by Levdr1lostpassword above, would simplify discussion in future instances of this contentious topic. — Scien tizzle 13:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Take it away guys, and note that my sandbox is going to be an actual article on vacated victories. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 23:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
...and I think we finally have a plan of action (sortof). My profuse apologies to anyone who was confused by what I said earlier, but here's what I've done:
The List of historically significant college football games is growing, maybe a little too much. I started a discussion on the talk page. Essentially, while I think the games on the list are all notable, it doesn't make them "historically significant" (which to me is a higher bar to get over). I invite others to discuss and review what has been done so far.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
With the inevitability of UND dropping "Fighting Sioux" as its school nickname, what does everyone think we should do at WP:CFB and WP:CBBALL when it does happen? Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
How does everyone feel about this being the Eastern Michigan navbox (the basketball coach navbox would also be changed, too):
Jrcla2 ( talk) 22:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In order to help ensure that we are consistent in how we deal with all teams/coaches with vacated/forfeited games, we should probably compile a complete list of all such instances. I have created one for college basketball called List of vacated and forfeited games in college basketball. Before doing the same for college football, what do others think about formatting, content, etc.? Cbl62 ( talk) 19:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Red Alert. Some over-eager category hound is proposing to rearrange the entire system of American college sports categories. Please voice your opinions and concerns here: [8]. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Without (yet) getting into the details of implementation, I suggest that we should add article importance/priority to our assessment. Once upone a time we did this, and then we stopped. The reason for stopping was that it was seen as "useless" and only "leads to arguments". I disagree with this reasoning on both counts, and I'd like to see this project resume evaluating importance.
If there is consensus for resuming article importance assessment, I'll volunteer to take the lead in constructing an importance guide, bringing it back to this talk page for approval, and then starting the implementation. But again, I'd like to first check for consensus on the general principal that we should be assessing article importance. Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Category:Lists of college football head coaches is subdivided by conference whereas Category:College football coaches in the United States is not. My feeling is that the subcategories of Category:Lists of college football head coaches should be merged up for parallelism and simplicity. Thoughts? Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Our current project scope includes the following statement: "In addition, key articles covering subject-specific terms like touchdown, field goal, or two-point conversion also fall under the purview of this project." I think this should be removed, as these terms are not subject-specific to college football, they are used in all forms of American football. So, I think these should be classified only under WikiProject:American football. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | College football Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
On November 20, after Nebraska suffered a difficult loss to Texas A&M, Nebraska DC Carl Pelini somehow took offense at something a local reporter/photographer did, rushed up to him and knocked the camera out of his hand, apparently damaging the camera. Photographic evidence of the incident exists. While regrettable and indefensible, I question whether a one-off incident of this nature belongs in a WP article. At what point does an article include or not include incidents from specific games? I mean, I know there is a threshold, but don't really think this meets it. I bring it up because user Macae ( talk) (a Texas Aggies fan as apparent from his talk page) continues to put this blurb in the Pelini article despite several other parties repeatedly removing it. I myself removed it once because I thought it was mostly inflammatory, but have since just observed. It is no secret that I am a Nebraska homer, so am seeking thoughts here from relatively unbiased parties. I am fairly confident that bringing it up on the talk page or directly with Macae (homer to homer) would probably not be productive. Is he flaming or am I being oversensitive? Fjbfour ( talk) 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Per Paulmcdonald's comments about notability above, do we have any standards in place for assistants who have never been head coaches? Guys like Norm Chow and Jerry Sandusky seem to be notable for sure as they have garnered plenty of media coverage including consideration for head coaching positions. I created an article a few months ago for Fred Jackson (American football coach), who's the most tenured member of the Michigan staff, having been with the team since 1992. User:Cbl62 has created some very nice articles for other Michigan assistants like Milan Vooletich. Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I looked it up on the wikipedia page on "Quarterback U" where it said nothing about the Washington Huskies had been widely considered as a "quarterback u" in any period of time. I think either we need a citation from someone who claimed Washington football as a quarterbacks-productive school. 13:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.223.158 ( talk)
I'm a little surprised at the lack of Capital One Bowl games history. I noticed how many redlinks there are on {{ Capital One Bowl}}. I'm not a die hard college football fan, but are the C.O.B. and its previously named Tangerine Bowls not important bowl games? Jrcla2 ( talk) 14:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi WP:CFB, thanks to some of you for starting the college basketball coach navbox tenures and full names transition. Before we go any further, I think there's one minor issue that needs to be worked out before proceeding. I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Coaching tenures for navboxes. Thanks! Jrcla2 ( talk) 18:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A bunch of us here have implemented some changes regarding succession boxes and nav boxes for college football coaches. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Nav boxes and succession boxes for coaches for a summary, plus a discussion about rolling these out to NFL coaches. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Two FCS coaching navboxes have been nominated for deletion: Albany Great Danes and Old Dominion Monarchs. If anyone has a history of keeping navboxes around, any input would be appreciated. Geologik ( talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we have categories for current players only? I proposed this one for deletion, and I'm looking for comments from project members. — bender235 ( talk) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Template:AFB Game Box Start, is it possible without an unreasonable amount of work to create the ability to toggle this to show two periods instead of four? Historically, early football games up into the 1900s only had two periods. When creating game summaries for these early games, I have used HTML to emulate the appearance of the template with two periods, as in this example of the 1905 Michigan-Nebraska game:
|
I'd like to be able to convert these to templates so that they will be carried along with any future template formatting changes. Is this possible? Anyone up to it? Maybe it's time for me to learn how to work on templates... Fjbfour ( talk) 17:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Can anyone verify if Bill Thomas (American football) is the same person as Bill Thomas (football coach)? It strikes me that these two are probably one in the same. If they are then the latter should be merged with the former. Jrcla2 ( talk) 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
What are this WikiProject's guidelines on templates like this? At WP:CBBALL we have a strict no–"current" anything except for current head coaches of a particular Division I conference. I feel like this Auburn template shouldn't exist, but I don't know. Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There is more than one variety of roster format out there. I've been using a modified version of the
wikimarkup one used at 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team (my mod is to simplify the work by listing all players alphabetically by last name instead of sorting by position). Before bringing this topic up, I did some searching of the talk archives and turned up two existing templates suitable for NCAA football rosters:
Template:American football roster/Player (seen
here), and
Template:NCAAplayer (seen
here). I personally prefer the roster/Player one, as it also includes the ability to integrate the coaching staff with it. In both cases, I find the presence of the graphic redshirt (
) visually distracting and unnecessary. I think I know just enough about templates to add to roster/Player the ability to show redshirt freshmen as "RFr" and forgo the graphic (it is an on/off toggle). Anyway, are there others to consider? Refinements to be made? Consensus to be found? It would be nice to nail this down and have it settled, like we did for the HFC navboxes.
Fjbfour (
talk) 04:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You guys might want to keep a very close eye on User:DragoLink08 ( talk / contribs). He has been going around and screwing up tons of college football and NFL-related color schemes. I don't think he's doing it on purpose, but sometimes the editors with the best intentions who go and make sweeping, non-consensus changes are the most dangerous kind. Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone why know this page is effectively assessed as a Good Article, i.e. it is categorized under Category:GA-Class college football articles. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:CurrentAuburnFBCoaches has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Jrcla2 (
talk) 02:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang! There's been some changes in several of the football coach navboxes lately. An editor is added expanded information to the boxes, showing not just the original last name, but also the first name and the period of coaching.
Example of differences:
I believe that it is important that we have uniform structures for all the coach navboxes. I see that there are both advantages and disadvantages to making this change. So my questions are the following:
Let's get everyone involved in this discussion... I think it's critical.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, per Fjbfour's concerns above regarding an underlying template solution, Template:CFB Yearly Record Subhead employs logic that can be replicated to handle single-year and present tenures. Another parameter to denote interim tenures could be added. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, guys, did we ever reach a conclusion on this? It seemed like we were VERY CLOSE to making a decision, or at least narrowing the options, and then got sidetracked on the "dagger" doo-hickey thingamabob. As things presently stand, I support the last variation espoused by Jweiss, the current Western Michigan Broncos navbox, with first and last names in unbolded font and the terms of service in small font. That having been said, why don't we post the five or six major alternatives, and start taking a vote of the project members to reach a consensus. I would suggest that we open a series of voting rounds to last a week each, and after each round, drop the alternative receiving the fewest votes until we have a winner. My father always said: "Son, don't start a job unless you intend to finish it." Let's finish the drill, guys. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a proponent of succession boxes and use them quite broadly in articles. I have numerous WP:FA and WP:GA that employ them such as Tyrone Wheatley, Brandon Graham (American football), Evan Turner, to name a few. Cbl62 has deleted several from Denard Robinson and Jweiss11 has deleted one from Jonas Mouton. Now at Talk:Denard Robinson/GA2, the decision seems to have been made to keep most of them out. Can someone tell me what the current policy is on succession boxes and why the following types of succession boxes are considered clutter.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I'll take a crack at explaining the evolving Big Picture. As a project, we are replacing all coach succession boxes with new enhanced navboxes that include the first name, the last name and years of service for every coach listed in the navboxes. The succession boxes for every Division I FBS coach have already been deleted; most of those for FCS and lower division coaches have been deleted and the remaining work is in progress. We are doing this in conjunction with WP College basketball, where the navbox enhancements are now in progress. Major college football awards, such as the Heisman, Maxwell, consensus All-American selections, etc., already have navboxes with names and dates, and the old succession boxes are being deleted as redundant. Succession boxes for starting positions, team statistical leaders, team awards, conference statistical leaders and minor conference awards are being deleted outright without navbox replacements. I believe that major conference awards (e.g., POY) are being considered on a case-by-case notability basis.
Bottom line: it is the evolving consensus of both WP:CFB and WP:CBB that succession boxes should be replaced with enhanced navboxes when appropriate, and removed in virtually all cases. To the extent that the succession boxes of other WikiProjects overlap with CBB and CFB articles, such as that for a football player who later became a U.S. Senator, we will not remove the other project's succession box (e.g. political office succession boxes) from CBB and CFB articles. Succession boxes for college basketball and football (and presumably other college sports, too) are getting whacked, however. FYI, we have already begun the discussion with WP:NFL to upgrade the NFL coach navboxes and remove the NFL succession boxes, too. Succession boxes are rapidly becoming an endangered species in these parts. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What types of succession boxes can be kept at the collegiate level? Here is one that I am now unsure about from Freddy Barnes.
Tony, I would suggest that the Division I FBS single-season record should be featured in the text and linked to the Division I FBS records page. (If we don't have one, we should: page creation opportunity, Tony!) The MAC record should be mentioned in text. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I just peeked at the Tyrone Wheatley article. The Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year is probably worthy of a navbox that lists all recipients of the award with the years awarded. The other two succession boxes are for conference statistical leaders, and, IMO, should be featured in the text. Mine is only one opinion, however; let's get some of the other guys to weigh in on this, so I'm not making pronouncements that aren't in keeping with what everyone else may be thinking. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang! I'm announcing TODAY (using all the WikiAuthority that I have, which of course is none) that our project needs to have a College Football Hall of Fame Cleanup Drive! I thought of it when I checked in on the change Jrcla2 made to Percy Langdon Wendell (it's in my watchlist) and realized that here is an article about a College Football Hall of Fame player and coach, but the article does not look like a "Hall of Fame" player/coach at all. We've got lots of pages like this.
So I'm looking for volunteers to pitch in. The cleanup drive main page is Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/College Football Hall of Fame. Anyone is welcome to join and pitch in!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Brady Hoke brought up the question whether a coach's article should mention that he wasn't a programm's first choice, or any kind of similar "controversy". Should Hoke's article mention that he was the school's third option, after Harbaugh and Miles? Similar to Pete Carroll's article, that reports that he wasn't USC's first option in 2000. Or Gene Chizik's article, that states that a number of Auburn people supported the hiring of Turner Gill. (This, of course, not offsets WP:V. I'm only talking about confirmed and well-sourced information.) — bender235 ( talk) 12:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If no reliable sources state another coach was actually offered the job or in serious discussions, I would lean towards not including it, as it seems to be too speculative. If there was another offer according to an RS, I think it could be included provided that it was worded neutrally. Strikehold ( talk) 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:MountaineersRunningbacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Jrcla2 (
talk) 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
...But at least this one isn't for head coaches. I noticed there's no real consistency for the team navboxes located in Category:American college football team navigational boxes. It's a minor issue as most of them are roughly the same, but for the sake of consistency I was wondering if these all needed to be standardized in some way. Jrcla2 ( talk) 13:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering if we had standards about using archaic names of schools in schedule tables for season pages. I'm making the pages for the early USC seasons, and the Trojans often played schools that went by a different name at the time including Oregon Agricultural for Oregon State and Throop University for Cal Tech. I've been referring to OSU as Oregon Agricultural based on the information in the season table on Oregon State Beavers football, and kept all references to Cal Tech as Cal Tech, simply because I haven't yet found reliable info on when the college went by its several names. First of all I feel I should keep it consistent, but I was also wondering if there was a standard we were sticking to around here. ― El Cid ∴ ∵ 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Now that we've put the coach succession box/nav box issue to rest and are well on our way to brighter pastures in that field, I want to tackle a related issue about categories. Sometime in 2009, an editor, who is now sanctioned against category editing, introduced a slew of head coaching categories as subcategories of coaching categories, e.g. Category:Michigan Wolverines football head coaches sub-categorized under Category:Michigan Wolverines football coaches. For the most part, these were created only for FBS programs; there a few others in existence for lower divisions.
This handiwork introduced some problems:
What we've been living with is a multi-dimensional mess. Many of the category transclusions, I believe, actually root back to any earlier day when the simple coaching categories were inappropriately tucked into the head coaching nav boxes, as is still the case for some lower division nav boxes. As a sidearm of the recent nav box upgrade and succession box purge effort, these transclusions are being removed and coaching categories are being properly placed onto the articles themselves, if they were missing. Killing the transclusions from the templates did away with vast majority of head coach categorizations, but we've never had any consistency with them. Sometimes the head coaching categories were on the article too (in many cases courtesy of yours truly) and thus survived the transclusion purge. I'm in the process of cleaning out these surviving head coach categorizations to get us back to a clean slate...and catching flack for it from this Oregon dude spying on the Willamette categories.
From here, with our new clean slate: we need to decide if we support the head coach categories, and, if so, which of the following three schemes we go with:
Frankly, I think these head coach categories open up a can of worms and we're better off without them. If we decide to go with no head coach categories, the following boilerplate template describing the scope of the coach categories should work well: Template:College football coach by team category description; see Category:Michigan Wolverines football coaches for an example in practice. If we go with head coaching categories, we could created similar instructive boilerplates to describe the chosen scheme.
Thoughts? Jweiss11 ( talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Look through the individual team categories of the NFL Category:National Football League coaches by team, they all have separate "sub" categories for head coaches although those who have also served as assistants are included in both categories. Example: Jason Garrett and Dave Campo are in both listed in Category:Dallas Cowboys head coaches and Category:Dallas Cowboys coaches. That being said, I think option #3 listed above makes the most sense, head coaches would be better organized with a separate category similar to the NFL teams superseding the "parent" category. NorthTechsan ( talk) 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus is for option 0, with which we eliminate the head coach categories. The next step is to open up a CFD for deletion/up-merging for the categories. I'll post again here when that discussion is opened up. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 27#College basketball categories and weigh in on the proposal. Thanks! Jrcla2 ( talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
You are cordially invited to join the newly-proposed WikiProject University of Connecticut, designed to promote collaboration and improvement on UConn-related articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, the following articles are proposed to be within the new WikiProject's scope:
Currently no one WikiProject covers all UConn-related content:
WikiProject University of Connecticut, when created, will be a centralized location to coordinate monitoring and improvement of UConn-related articles. To comment on the proposed creation of the new WikiProject University of Connecticut, click here. To join the proposed WikiProject, click here, as the membership list is transcluded directly on the proposal page. Thank you for your attention, and GO HUSKIES! – Grondemar |
– Grondemar 01:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Reminder there are several AFD discussion related to football at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football that could use some review and comments.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You guys are great at research, especially when it comes to old-time college football head coaches. I stumbled upon Henry Otis Pratt while upgrading {{ Cincinnati Bearcats basketball coach navbox}} today. His first, middle and last names are all exactly the same as the Cincinnati men's basketball and football head coach during the 1901–1902 school year. The date of birth and date of death indicate that he could potentially be the same person as the head coach of those sports, but I haven't been able to find any sources to confirm it.
It seems like a long-shot (IMO) that someone who shares that exact full name and geographic location (generally speaking, Iowa and southwest Ohio aren't too far apart) wouldn't be the same person. Can you guys help me out? Jrcla2 ( talk) 18:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've put up an article at 1939 Fordham vs. Waynesburg football game that could use some additional research. As a game it wasn't much, but it was the first televised football game. Could be a DYK candidate if we move fast.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with college football. But, I was hoping someone out there knows how to set up WikiProjects. Tonight I created Category:Category-Class college basketball articles and Category:Template-Class college basketball articles because I thought it was ridiculous to have thousands of NA-class articles when most of them fall under one of those two aforementioned categories. However, neither category has any items in them, despite the fact that I know I've personally tagged hundreds of categories and templates as such. Am I missing something? Did I not set it up properly? Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for this, but I have a similar issue with Category:Book-Class NBA articles. Nothing shows up even though I created Template:WikiProject National Basketball Association/css. Can you help me? Thanks— Chris! c/ t 02:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NAIA to create a related WikiProject. Please consider reading the proposal and commenting at that page. Alternatives include joining an existing related project (such as this one) or creating a WP:TASKFORCE under a related project with a larger scope. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand Wikipedia's fair use policies recommend uploading a low resolution image, but the Miami RedHawks logo is really low quality. Would it be acceptable to upload a slightly higher resolution image, or is this the only resolution that's allowed? It seems really kind of grainy... Nomader ( Talk) 06:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
With all of the conference moves coming up, I've got a bit of a conundrum when it comes to uniform file names. For example, Colorado's 1930s throwback worn in 2009 will probably not be worn again, so should it be renamed to reflect the conference change when Colorado moves to the Pac-12? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 09:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since it has no bearing on the project as a whole, I've begun updating my page to reflect the conference changes, but I'm not sure if I should start changing the file names now. The season is over, so I'm leaning towards making the moves, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you guys think? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to come back here to discuss the uniform image naming a bit more. Specifically, I don't think the current procedure of using a single filename (e.g. File:Pac-12-Uniform-UCLA.png) for the current uni and then changing the image at that location each time a team makes a change is a good practice. I think a better way to deal with this would be to simply add each new uni at a new location (for example, if UCLA starts a new uni in 2011, it might be at File:Pac-12-Uniform-UCLA-2011.png). That way the edit history and description for each uniform iteration would remain intact, and it would be easier to manage the images' appearance in season articles. cmadler ( talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
After User:Eagle4000 split up the USA Today All-USA high school football team article, I thought about getting rid of the whole article in favor of a format similar to the College All-Americans, with articles for every year (e.g., 2010) to summarize all the different All-America teams. Because besides USA Today, there are a number of notable publishers of All-America teams, like Parade, EA Sports, Rivals, MaxPreps, and probably even more. What are your thoughts? -- bender235 ( talk) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To revitalize this discussion, CBSSports.com has compiled a list of consensus HS All-Americans. I think we should such lists for every class. -- bender235 ( talk) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The fair use rational for File:David M. Nelson.jpg has been disputed, with a claim that the image is being used in "purely decorative fashion" at David M. Nelson. I'm not sure I understand the argument since there are a myriad of copyrighted images or images with unknown copyright of deceased persons used here on Wikipedia in exactly the same way. If the image is being used in "purely decorative fashion", the same would be true for just about every image of a biography subject on Wikipedia. Please comment if you have any insight. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the current standard for notability of college athletes: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes
College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
- Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
- Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
- Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
IMO, this is dramatically, overly restrictive and creates a patchwork. HS recruits can become notable before they play collegiately, regardless of what they subsequently achieve. So if an article wasn't created on the player while in high school, the above stated criteria will skew to upperclassmen, post-college recognition, and large market teams in high profile sports (respectively). I also see problems in team vs individual sports. Any thoughts? Pasadena91 ( talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/March/14 and comment on the discussion on Category:College football coaches first appointed in the 2010s stubs-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A file related to this WikiProject, File:Texas Flag at DKR - North Texas vs Texas 2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion if you would like to participate in the discussion. Johntex\ talk 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone at WP:CFB know that after months of upgrading and lots of lost sleep (on my end, anyway), WikiProject College basketball has 100% finished the Division I coaches' navbox upgrades. We don't really have any D-II and lower navboxes yet (I'm sure in time we will, for now we focus on the big boys).
You guys were making lots of noise about how you would want to try and convince WP:NFL, WP:NBA and maybe even WP:Baseball about doing the same, once the college basketball coaches were finished. Thank God it's over – now I can concentrate on editing I actually want to do... Jrcla2 ( talk) 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. The article writer is only semi-active, so would one of you guys be able to make the changes to get the article to GA? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Watts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Watts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Hey everyone, I'm noticing some issues with Template:Infobox NCAA football single game, specifically with the "date" functionality. Examples of the problem can be seen at the following pages:
The issue may be my inability to enter the fields correctly, but in any case--HELP! :)-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang, here's a new list to check out:
Enjoy!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've got basic coach pages set up for the Franklin & Marshall program. Feel free to dive in and add more details and collaboration!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion underway concerning a college football head coach here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur S. Herman. Please comment if you have a chance. Thanks. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion currently underway in regards to content at Talk:Andy Dalton (American football) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey gang! The [ NAIA 2011 Spring Football Poll] is out! Check it for any NAIA teams whose pages you support!-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Health issues in American football is currently undergoing an article for deletion discussion. See the discussion here. — Ute in DC ( talk) 07:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1932–36 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams appears to contain a copy-paste error, where the last two years listed are 1930 and 1931 instead of 1935 and 1936. I started to update it from this page but I'm not really familiar with the subject so I didn't get very far. If someone who is more familiar could take a look and maybe fix the article it'd be great. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Template:CollegePrimaryColor and Template:CollegeSecondaryColor are both up for deletion since May 3. Wasn't this someone's project here not too long ago? So far no one has voted either way. Just a heads up. Fjbfour ( talk) 11:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts about the notability of Luke Sniewski? This article appears to have been created by the subject, but he seems borderline notable as there are a fair amount of new stories about him on Google news. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A number of the articles for conference championship games have been moved to include the word "Football" (capitalized) in their title for the purpose of disambiguation, per the editor:
The problem is that the official names of these games do not include the word "Football". A more appropriate qualifier would be a parenthetical "football", but I'm not sure that is needed because the championship games for other sports are framed as tournaments and seem to include the name of their sport in their official titles. It should be noted that the Conference USA Football Championship Game, and the Big Ten Football Championship Game, to be played for the first time this coming season, each include "Football" in their official title, but I have not see an indication of name changes for other conference championship games listed above. Hence, these article moves should all be reverted, unless I am wrong about that last point. Thoughts? Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a college football guy, so I thought I would mention that the subject of this unreferenced stub just recently had a lengthy obituary in The New York Times here if anyone cares to improve the article. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There's a 'College Athlete Recruit Entry' template in Ramone Moore. It shows height as:
but should be something like:
Weight is shown as:
but should be something like:
The column heading "Weight (lb)" would then become 'Weight' to match the heading "Height". The phrase "Overall Recruiting Rankings:" should be sentence case. I don't know how to edit the template. Does anybody here have the skills to do it? Lightmouse ( talk) 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know enough about the subject to make such an edit. Would anybody like to resolve this? Lightmouse ( talk) 18:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello all,
I've been working on referencing the 2001 Michigan vs. Michigan State football game article over the past week or so, and while I have been able to cite the vast majority of its content, there are a few statements that are still lacking sources. I'm hoping that someone more knowledgeable than me might know where to find proper references for the following (currently unreferenced) statements:
There were also two more minor points that I could not find references for and took out of the article. If anyone can find references for them, they can certainly be put back in:
Any help you are able to provide would be much appreciated!
TFCforever ( talk) 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: There is an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination) project members may be interested in.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I suggest that we keep an eye on the discussion located here: Template talk:University of Central Florida#Coloring. There is an IP user ("125.162.150.88") out of Indonesia who has randomly deleted the black and gold school colors used on several of the University of Central Florida navboxes, and is making the argument that all use of school colors is prohibited/officially discouraged based on his misreading of WP:Deviations. I found the discussion only today when I discovered that the black and gold school colors for the navboxes for UCF, UCF presidents, and UCF sports teams had been removed. (I have reverted these changes.) For those of us who have spent hours and hours working on college sports navboxes, this discussion and related navbox changes certainly bear watching. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone at this WikiProject create Virginia Conference? It's a defunct athletic conference from the 1900s that I don't know anything about, nor can I find anything about (it's pretty impossible finding info on Google when the two most important keywords are "Virginia" and "conference"). I ask this because some of you have great college football resources available, and I'm not sure if this conference pertained to basketball as well. It's the only red link on {{ William & Mary Tribe Football}}, and I'd like to see it blue, if possible. Jrcla2 ( talk) 14:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please look at Pete Carroll and the edit war that is brewing over there regarding the revocation of USC's 2004 championship. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I was creating the page for the 2010 Connecticut vs. Michigan football game which was on the list of notable games that did not have pages because it said it was the "Largest regular season single game attendance to date". However, when doing research I found this link [1], which says that Soldier Field holds the record with 123,000 in 1927. Wondering how to handle this.
NT1952 ( talk) 17:22, 4 Junes 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.188.158 ( talk)
I just wrote the article on Harold Hess, but while researching it, I have been unable to confirm whether the same person was the Cal Poly coach. I have found contemporary sources that link the Penn State player, USC freshman coach, and Loyola Marymount varsity coach (sometimes called "Bill Hess" here).
However, the only source linking the LMU coach with the Cal Poly coach is the College Football Data Warehouse, which has the occasional tendency to incorrectly conflate coaches. The only other source I can find referencing the Cal Poly coach at all is the Cal Poly media guide which lists him as "H. Hess". Also, the Cal Poly coach's tenure is recorded as 1919-1920, when the USC/LMU coach Hess was playing at Penn State (according to the PSU media guide and numerous contemporary sources).
Doesn't help that almost all of the contemporary references from this era on the West Coast are the Los Angeles Times which is subscription only. Any help would be appreciated, especially if someone has access to the LA Times archives. Strikehold ( talk) 01:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
User:USLcajun85 has been going and blanking college football articles and templates, then copy/pasting their content into "new" pages. Not only has he not tried to gain consensus regarding the name change for the program (which personally, I don't mind the new name change, but it still needs to gain consensus through a discussion first), he's going outside of procedure that would move, or merge, new pages and templates. Here's a list from what I can discern that he's done this to (note: blanked on the left, copied/pasted on the right):
I don't have much empathy for new editors on this particular day, so I'm afraid I'd bite him if I tried to explain why he's wrong for doing all of that. Can someone from the WP message him about the aforementioned concerns? Also, should we just redirect all of his redirects back to the old versions, since those are the ones with edit history? Jrcla2 ( talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, he's gone back and moved them again. At least this time, the move was technically correct (an actual move, rather than his previous copy/paste/blank) and preserved the page histories. By all appearances, he hasn't acknowledged any statements regarding the contested name of the articles. Furthermore, the account is only ten days old, and his contributions have been pretty much exclusively geared towards this name change. Thoughts? De Fault Ryan 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
On this subject, there's no consistent naming scheme for Ragin' Cajuns articles and categories:
Whatever the accepted short name is, it should be applied uniformly to all these and related elements. Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've upgraded Template:Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach navbox both in naming and form per the new standards that came out of the collaboration between WikiProject College football and WikiProject College Basketball. If anyone would like to help out upgrading the other NFL coach navboxes, don't be bashful! Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Fictional Alabama Crimson Tide football players? Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ralph Archer was one of the first group inducted into the University Hall of Fame. During his college days he was captain of the football team and named to the all Kansas football team. After graduation, he took a leave of absence from his job with International Harvester Co. to be temporary coach, while the search for a full time coach was conducted. He returned to IHC and worked his way up through the organization. His final position with IHC was Vice President of Manufacturing at the time of his death in 1957. Ralph Archer Jr. ( talk) 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up (perhaps with an eye towards an RFC) spurred by recent editing at USC Trojans football, 2004 USC Trojans football team, 2005 USC Trojans football team and Pete Carroll. As many editing in this project likely know, USC recently had its 2004 BCS title vacated; this follows an earlier NCAA decision to vacate wins from 2004 & 2005. A dispute has arisen on how to deal with the presentation of win records and other noted achievements in regard to the vacated games. The present dispute centers on USC, but there are ample examples of other programs that have had major NCAA sanctions including vacated wins...inevitably future NCAA rulings will similarly affect other programs. I think this Wikiproject could benefit from a discussion on how to generally handle this sort of information consistently across college football articles.
To illustrate the types of issues involved, college football coaching accomplishments listed at Pete Carroll include winning records before (97–19) and after (83-19) vacated wins, a 34 game winning streak during 2003–05 that includes 14 vacated wins, and 7 consecutive BCS bowl appearances that includes two vacated BCS bowls in the middle of the streak. Edits like this typify how one "side" seems to view the situation: that because official NCAA records have been altered, Wikipedia must similarly expunge or alter its information presentations to fit only NCAA-sanctioned records. I personally find this problematic on multiple levels:
Acknowledging that the NCAA, the governing body of Div I college football, has a reasonable authority to present "official" statistical accounts, I'm perfectly in favor of noting those values. However, where media sources and historical records vary from the NCAA, the NCAA should not get exclusive authority over Wikipedia's coverage.
I personally favor a somewhat nuanced " asterisk"-type general plan in which noted accomplishments later affected by official rulings should be presented as their original information followed by a clear explanatory note on how later developments alter the official and historical view of the presented information. I'd like to hear what other editors in this arena feel about the topic...can a consensus be developed on how to consistently deal with this type of information? — Scien tizzle 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Example for consideration: Here I implemented a footnote system on a list of accomplishments in the Pete Carroll. I worry it may be a bit clunky, but I think it's informative... — Scien tizzle 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, so in my mind there is obviously enough interest here to make a real declaration/descision of sorts for future notice. So what do we decide? I believe everyone agrees that both records should be listed in one form or another (i.e. we shouldn't just have the official record and no other notes), but which do we emphasize? I personally think having both is too bulky and can be confusing (NOTE: I mean side by side. Sorry for the possible confusion. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)), so do we list the official record, or what was actually played. Remember that sanctions are mainly supposed to affect/punish the school in question, and aren't necessarily supposed to be a wholesale revision of the record books. Without to much discussion, could everyone list their personal preference and reasoning. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There's discussion underway at Talk:Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry apropos of this topic. Jweiss11 ( talk) 19:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the election there's no "official" vote until the results are certified, and after that I think you're stuck with them, but I don't claim to know. Anyhow in the absence of actual decisions to work with, this whole discussion is premature, though I look forward to armwrestling on it when the time comes. (Speaking of premature, can someone look in at Talk:Michigan_–_Ohio_State_football_rivalry#OSU_vacated_victories_.28July_2011.29, toward the bottom, where there is a discussion about the propriety of removing vacated *losses* from the article, based on an ESPN.com blog article (and in the face of a Grant Wahl article cited earlier here))? Thanks - JohnInDC ( talk) 00:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
(Cross-posted in similar substance at
Talk:Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry)
I stumbled across this NCAA document this morning. I highlighted the parts that seemed pertinent to "vacation of wins". I am not sure this is as enlightening as it could be but I offer it up for information and / or discussion. I would note that 1) coaches' all-time records are affected but also 2) none of this real until the NCAA Committee on Infractions says so. The original link is here:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Stats/Statistics+Policies
JohnInDC ( talk) 17:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
We checked with a person in the know at the NCAA, and it was confirmed that, while Alabama does indeed lose their win against Hawaii — provided the sanctions are upheld on appeal — Hawaii will not get to pick that win up. Additionally, the game does not count in any type of series record between the two teams.
posted by John Taylor, NBCSports.com College Football Talk (CFT), July 4, 2009
Now we have an NCAA source (from 2009), speaking on the subject of college football, that confirms what Chris Low posted (also in 2009). From the perspective of the winning team, the vacated win is removed from the winning team's own series record (though JohnInDC rightly points out that an asterisk should be added to note the change). From the perspective of the losing team, nothing changes-- the loss is retained in the losing team's own series record. From the perspective of both teams, the game does not count in the series record between the two teams (again, an asterisk should be added noting the change). Once the NCAA rules, the series record ought to reflect what John Taylor has reported. Levdr1lostpassword ( talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
A forfeit takes a win away and awards it to the losing team both in the single-season and series records. Ole Miss went from a losing season to a winning year in '93 after the NCAA forfeited Bama's 19-14 win over the Rebels. Vacated games can get more confusing. While Alabama will not be credited for 21 wins, neither will the 21 victims in their season records. So while the Tide will be 0-2 in 2005, Tennessee still will have to accept its 5-6 record. The Volunteers will get a break, however, in their series record against Alabama because the '05 game in Tuscaloosa no longer will count.
David Paschall, TimesFreePress.com Sports, June 16, 2009
Levdr1lostpassword ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Since it appears that a) the NCAA has enough answers to fix most potential problems (series records, etc.) and that b) there probably won't ever be enough support for a straight up rejection of the NCAA's versions (which I somewhat support), I propose that we:
Note that I don't exactly agree with all this, but I do think that this is the compromise most likely to be accepted by everyone. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 19:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The NCAA is indeed silent when they don't publish an official policy on a particular question (here, series records), and when journalists and bloggers discussing the subject consistently report only information supplied to them sub rosa, by unnamed sources holding unnamed positions within the organization. It is "official" when the NCAA publishes it, not when information is disseminated from it without the imprimatur of the office, i.e., *un*officially. (You have to ask yourself too whether the three reporters didn't report the name or names of their sources because none of the reporters deemed their sources' names to be pertinent - perhaps - or because the sources wouldn't allow their names to be used, because their views, however well-informed, were not policy that the NCAA had determined to promulgate officially.) Low et al. are probably in fact describing what the NCAA would say, if it did declare an official policy on the subject, but that is not the same as actual official policy. Next. The notion that Low et al. are describing (or reporting, as you will) - that series records *don't* reflect the loss - is inconsistent on its face with the express, written, official NCAA policy that vacated wins don't remove the loss from the opposing team. Series records are nothing more or less the sum of opposing teams wins, losses and ties, and when you write off a W but not an L, they will no longer match. Again back to Lincoln: In some cases the NCAA intends to count a tail as a leg, and in others it doesn't. Fine. But don't try to claim they're "consistent". JohnInDC ( talk) 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We checked with a person in the know at the NCAA, and it was confirmed that, while Alabama does indeed lose their win against Hawaii — provided the sanctions are upheld on appeal — Hawaii will not get to pick that win up. Additionally, the game does not count in any type of series record between the two teams.
I've had several questions from fans wondering what it means for other teams in the SEC now that Alabama has to vacate 21 wins from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons... The short answer is... nothing. Alabama has to give up those wins, but the other teams don't get the wins. And in terms of the series record, it's as if those games were never played.
A forfeit takes a win away and awards it to the losing team both in the single-season and series records. Ole Miss went from a losing season to a winning year in '93 after the NCAA forfeited Bama's 19-14 win over the Rebels. Vacated games can get more confusing. While Alabama will not be credited for 21 wins, neither will the 21 victims in their season records. So while the Tide will be 0-2 in 2005, Tennessee still will have to accept its 5-6 record. The Volunteers will get a break, however, in their series record against Alabama because the '05 game in Tuscaloosa no longer will count.
It sounds like the general consensus is forming...In infoboxes and other overview figures, the official NCAA record should always be presented. In cases for which the NCAA has altered the official record, such as the vacating wins or forfeiting games, an asterisk or footnote providing a succinct explanation of this change and its effects on the relevant records is a viable way of contextualizing these data and should be utilized to the fullest reasonable extent. The article text should fully discuss any such discrepancies, citing relevant sources and clarifying details not suitable for a footnote.
An essay that fully elucidates NCAA recommendations and media norms, such as those discussed by Levdr1lostpassword above, would simplify discussion in future instances of this contentious topic. — Scien tizzle 13:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Take it away guys, and note that my sandbox is going to be an actual article on vacated victories. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 23:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
...and I think we finally have a plan of action (sortof). My profuse apologies to anyone who was confused by what I said earlier, but here's what I've done:
The List of historically significant college football games is growing, maybe a little too much. I started a discussion on the talk page. Essentially, while I think the games on the list are all notable, it doesn't make them "historically significant" (which to me is a higher bar to get over). I invite others to discuss and review what has been done so far.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
With the inevitability of UND dropping "Fighting Sioux" as its school nickname, what does everyone think we should do at WP:CFB and WP:CBBALL when it does happen? Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
How does everyone feel about this being the Eastern Michigan navbox (the basketball coach navbox would also be changed, too):
Jrcla2 ( talk) 22:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In order to help ensure that we are consistent in how we deal with all teams/coaches with vacated/forfeited games, we should probably compile a complete list of all such instances. I have created one for college basketball called List of vacated and forfeited games in college basketball. Before doing the same for college football, what do others think about formatting, content, etc.? Cbl62 ( talk) 19:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Red Alert. Some over-eager category hound is proposing to rearrange the entire system of American college sports categories. Please voice your opinions and concerns here: [8]. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Without (yet) getting into the details of implementation, I suggest that we should add article importance/priority to our assessment. Once upone a time we did this, and then we stopped. The reason for stopping was that it was seen as "useless" and only "leads to arguments". I disagree with this reasoning on both counts, and I'd like to see this project resume evaluating importance.
If there is consensus for resuming article importance assessment, I'll volunteer to take the lead in constructing an importance guide, bringing it back to this talk page for approval, and then starting the implementation. But again, I'd like to first check for consensus on the general principal that we should be assessing article importance. Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Category:Lists of college football head coaches is subdivided by conference whereas Category:College football coaches in the United States is not. My feeling is that the subcategories of Category:Lists of college football head coaches should be merged up for parallelism and simplicity. Thoughts? Jweiss11 ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Our current project scope includes the following statement: "In addition, key articles covering subject-specific terms like touchdown, field goal, or two-point conversion also fall under the purview of this project." I think this should be removed, as these terms are not subject-specific to college football, they are used in all forms of American football. So, I think these should be classified only under WikiProject:American football. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)