![]() | College football Project‑class | ||||||
|
I blatently copied the Military page on this topic and converted to college football. The importance scale is open for discussion, as in creating it, it was hard to define the levels. Generally, current information should be rated higher and more global information covering all of college football should be rated higher. Perhaps, for example, a person should rate an article on it's currentness and globalness on a scale of 0 to 5 and add the two numbers and if it's 8-10 it should be top, 6-7 high, 4-5 mid, 2-3 low and 0-1 why does it exist? Thus, items about the current season would automatically get a 5 plus the globalness, (say a team page) would get a 1 or 2 so it would be a 6-7 and rated high. An item about a current player would be the same. An NFL player, if currently playing in the NFL would be a 4, if retired a 3 or 2 depending on how long ago. Let me try and sort this out with a chart:
Still seems fairly random. I guess it can't be an exact science. Mecu 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think creators of the article or major contributors should rank the articles. Thoughts? CJC47 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of the ratings are peculiar, the Miami Orange Bowl is rated high, while Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and Doak Campbell Stadium are low. Why would the stadium that competes with the Citrus Bowl as the biggest piece of junk in the Sunshine State be more important than the Swamp, which never has an attendence below 87,000 (where the Orange Bowl occasionally has crowds of less than 25,000) and is Kirk Herbstreit's favorite on-campus stadium, along with having the reputation being one of (if not the) most intimidating places to play and having existed nearly a decade longer than the Orange Bowl. I just don't get it.-- Porsche997SBS 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There were several awards, like the Maxwell Award, that were rated at Top. I went ahead, was bold and changed them to low. I left the Heisman Trophy at Top. My question is whether or not those should be low. Bornagain4 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
We had a discussion awhile back about how to classify certain articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#A new way of looking at things. I've taken those determinations and compiled a list below. Please review. Maybe this should be included on the main page for people to refer to when ranking articles.
|
-- NMajdan• talk 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Athletic programs are not under the College football Wikiproject. MECU≈ talk 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the above scheme, I find this phrase to be ambiguous: "Articles on the current coach of a BCS/Top 25 team". In context it looks like it could be saying an all-time Top 25 team, but it could be referring to the current Top 25. I really want to see people like Chris Petersen get their due (because I think the stories of programs like that are interesting), so I'm hopeful it's the latter interpretation. Regardless, it should be clarified. Cheers, PhilipR 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Why's it takin' so long to get any assessments done? Come on people. I think I'm the only one who's reiewed or commented the assessment page this MONTH! Let's get some work done people!!! -- Cra sh U nderride 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we add a template class for college football for items such as Template:2009 Big East football standings, Template:NCAAFootballYearlyGameHeader, or other such items. I think it would be helpful if there were something like that so that all templates related to college football could be more easily grouped and eventually standardized, rated, and updated. Any thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Streamlining_reassments. Thanks. De Fault Ryan 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing a change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Change Proposal to Assessment. Please visit that page for discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Per discussion (and no objection) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, I am beginning the process of reinstating importance assessment. I thought a good place to begin would be some basic principles, in no particular order:
Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
With consensus, an article may be assessed as one level lower than given for its type. In exceptional cases, with consensus, an article may be assessed as one level higher than given for its type.
FBS AQ | FBS non-AQ ("mid major") | FCS | Other | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Association Season | Top ( 2010 NCAA Division I FBS football season) | High ( 2004 NCAA Division I-AA football season) | ||
Conference | High ( Mid-American Conference) | Mid | ||
Conference season* | High ( 2010 Big Ten Conference football season) | Mid | Low | |
Team | High ( Kentucky Wildcats football) | Mid | Mid | |
Team season* | Mid ( 2010 Akron Zips football team)** | Low** | Bottom** | |
Rivalry | Mid ( Paul Bunyan Trophy) | Mid ( Michigan MAC Trophy) | Low ( Battle for the Old Mountain Jug) | Low |
Single game* | Low | Low | Bottom | |
Post-season game (general) | High ( Rose Bowl) | Mid ( Humanitarian Bowl) | Mid ( Gridiron Classic) | Low ( Aztec Bowl) |
Post-season game (specific)* | Mid for BCS bowls/top-10 teams ( 2010 Sugar Bowl), Low for all others ( 2005 Motor City Bowl) | Bottom | ||
Ranking/rating systems (inc. championships) | High ( Bowl Championship Series, Dickinson System) | Mid | Low ( NCAA Division II National Football Championship) | |
Pageantry and lore | Low ( Aggie Bonfire, The Victors, Sparty, Quarterback U, Game of the Century (college football), Rudy (film)) | |||
Head coach* | Low ( Rich Rodriguez)*** | Bottom | ||
Assistant coach*** | Bottom | |||
Player* | Low ( Dan LeFevour)** | Bottom | ||
Facility | Mid**** | Low**** | ||
General football concepts | Top-Mid (depending on degree of use through the history of the sport) | |||
Individual awards and honors | Low***** | Bottom***** | ||
Media coverage/figures | Mid-Bottom, assessed on an ad hoc basis ( College Football on ABC, Brent Musburger, Grantland Rice) | |||
List | At the normal level of the items in the list. |
*Based on level at the time, e.g.
2010 UMass Minutemen football season was in FCS but
2013 UMass Minutemen football season will be in FBS. This principle also applies to now-defunct programs, conferences, and post-season games.
**National champion team seasons, Hiesman Trophy winners, consensus first-team All-Americans, should start two levels higher than given; conference champion seasons, All-Americans, and other major national award winners should start one level higher than given.
***Based on the highest level coached; coaches who have won a national championship should start two levels higher than given; coaches who have finished a season in the top 10 of a major poll or won a conference championship should start one level higher than given.
****Facilities that have always been primarily practice facilities should start one level lower than given. Facilities that have served as the home site for multiple national champion team seasons and/or regularly hosted a top-tier (BCS/top-10) post-season game should start two levels higher than given; facilities that have served as the home site for one national champion team season and/or regularly hosted a post-season game should start one level higher than given.
*****National player of the year or MVP awards (e.g.
Harlon Hill Trophy) should start two levels higher than given; other major national awards (including positional awards, coaching awards, All-America teams, and national halls of fame) should start one level higher than given.
Often, as an article grows, sections of it may be spun off as separate articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). When this is the case, the sub-topic should generally be one importance level lower than the parent article, or infrequently the same importance level. Only in exceptional cases will the sub-article be of higher importance than the parent article. Among others, this rule applies to a team history ( History of Ohio State Buckeyes football) and lists of bowl games by team ( List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games) relative to the team article; football by conference ( Big 12 Conference football) and lists of champions by conference ( List of Big Ten Conference football champions) relative to the conference article; bowl games by season ( 2010–11 NCAA football bowl games) and yearly rankings by season ( 2010 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings) relative to the association season article.
The matrix above may look complicated, but keep in mind that this WikiProject has nearly 30,000 articles in it. The more explicit we can be as to how the articles should be assessed for importance, the easier it will be to apply an assessment scheme, and the fewer arguments are likely to result. With such a matrix, it should be relatively simple to assess the importance of even a stub article, it being necessary only to determine the applicable category, the level of competition, and whether any special considerations apply. cmadler ( talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Changes made. cmadler ( talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Cmadler, thanks for all your work here and for kicking off the matrix. The following is a list of things missing from your matrix that ought to be added in:
Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Per what Dirtlawyer has said above, iconic head coaches of major programs (current or historical), e.g. Paterno, Bowden, Bryant, Neyland, Hayes, Shembechler, Yost, Stagg, Camp, Warner, Heisman, Dodd, Royal, Wilkinson, Switzer, Osborne, Sutherland, Zuppke, Parseghian, Rockne, etc..., should be top priority. These guys have been the faces of college football. Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at articles importance rank recently? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Top-importance_college_football_articles ...I think that we might have one or two more important articles to get to than say, the 1901 Michigan Wolverines. 199.190.61.128 ( talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add links or footnotes on the importance section to explain the terms "FBS AQ" and "FBS non-AQ"? I added the FCS one, but the other distinctions are not obvious to folks outside of the project. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
view · · changes |
![]() | College football Project‑class | ||||||
|
I blatently copied the Military page on this topic and converted to college football. The importance scale is open for discussion, as in creating it, it was hard to define the levels. Generally, current information should be rated higher and more global information covering all of college football should be rated higher. Perhaps, for example, a person should rate an article on it's currentness and globalness on a scale of 0 to 5 and add the two numbers and if it's 8-10 it should be top, 6-7 high, 4-5 mid, 2-3 low and 0-1 why does it exist? Thus, items about the current season would automatically get a 5 plus the globalness, (say a team page) would get a 1 or 2 so it would be a 6-7 and rated high. An item about a current player would be the same. An NFL player, if currently playing in the NFL would be a 4, if retired a 3 or 2 depending on how long ago. Let me try and sort this out with a chart:
Still seems fairly random. I guess it can't be an exact science. Mecu 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think creators of the article or major contributors should rank the articles. Thoughts? CJC47 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of the ratings are peculiar, the Miami Orange Bowl is rated high, while Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and Doak Campbell Stadium are low. Why would the stadium that competes with the Citrus Bowl as the biggest piece of junk in the Sunshine State be more important than the Swamp, which never has an attendence below 87,000 (where the Orange Bowl occasionally has crowds of less than 25,000) and is Kirk Herbstreit's favorite on-campus stadium, along with having the reputation being one of (if not the) most intimidating places to play and having existed nearly a decade longer than the Orange Bowl. I just don't get it.-- Porsche997SBS 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There were several awards, like the Maxwell Award, that were rated at Top. I went ahead, was bold and changed them to low. I left the Heisman Trophy at Top. My question is whether or not those should be low. Bornagain4 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
We had a discussion awhile back about how to classify certain articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#A new way of looking at things. I've taken those determinations and compiled a list below. Please review. Maybe this should be included on the main page for people to refer to when ranking articles.
|
-- NMajdan• talk 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Athletic programs are not under the College football Wikiproject. MECU≈ talk 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the above scheme, I find this phrase to be ambiguous: "Articles on the current coach of a BCS/Top 25 team". In context it looks like it could be saying an all-time Top 25 team, but it could be referring to the current Top 25. I really want to see people like Chris Petersen get their due (because I think the stories of programs like that are interesting), so I'm hopeful it's the latter interpretation. Regardless, it should be clarified. Cheers, PhilipR 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Why's it takin' so long to get any assessments done? Come on people. I think I'm the only one who's reiewed or commented the assessment page this MONTH! Let's get some work done people!!! -- Cra sh U nderride 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we add a template class for college football for items such as Template:2009 Big East football standings, Template:NCAAFootballYearlyGameHeader, or other such items. I think it would be helpful if there were something like that so that all templates related to college football could be more easily grouped and eventually standardized, rated, and updated. Any thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Streamlining_reassments. Thanks. De Fault Ryan 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing a change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Change Proposal to Assessment. Please visit that page for discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Per discussion (and no objection) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, I am beginning the process of reinstating importance assessment. I thought a good place to begin would be some basic principles, in no particular order:
Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
With consensus, an article may be assessed as one level lower than given for its type. In exceptional cases, with consensus, an article may be assessed as one level higher than given for its type.
FBS AQ | FBS non-AQ ("mid major") | FCS | Other | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Association Season | Top ( 2010 NCAA Division I FBS football season) | High ( 2004 NCAA Division I-AA football season) | ||
Conference | High ( Mid-American Conference) | Mid | ||
Conference season* | High ( 2010 Big Ten Conference football season) | Mid | Low | |
Team | High ( Kentucky Wildcats football) | Mid | Mid | |
Team season* | Mid ( 2010 Akron Zips football team)** | Low** | Bottom** | |
Rivalry | Mid ( Paul Bunyan Trophy) | Mid ( Michigan MAC Trophy) | Low ( Battle for the Old Mountain Jug) | Low |
Single game* | Low | Low | Bottom | |
Post-season game (general) | High ( Rose Bowl) | Mid ( Humanitarian Bowl) | Mid ( Gridiron Classic) | Low ( Aztec Bowl) |
Post-season game (specific)* | Mid for BCS bowls/top-10 teams ( 2010 Sugar Bowl), Low for all others ( 2005 Motor City Bowl) | Bottom | ||
Ranking/rating systems (inc. championships) | High ( Bowl Championship Series, Dickinson System) | Mid | Low ( NCAA Division II National Football Championship) | |
Pageantry and lore | Low ( Aggie Bonfire, The Victors, Sparty, Quarterback U, Game of the Century (college football), Rudy (film)) | |||
Head coach* | Low ( Rich Rodriguez)*** | Bottom | ||
Assistant coach*** | Bottom | |||
Player* | Low ( Dan LeFevour)** | Bottom | ||
Facility | Mid**** | Low**** | ||
General football concepts | Top-Mid (depending on degree of use through the history of the sport) | |||
Individual awards and honors | Low***** | Bottom***** | ||
Media coverage/figures | Mid-Bottom, assessed on an ad hoc basis ( College Football on ABC, Brent Musburger, Grantland Rice) | |||
List | At the normal level of the items in the list. |
*Based on level at the time, e.g.
2010 UMass Minutemen football season was in FCS but
2013 UMass Minutemen football season will be in FBS. This principle also applies to now-defunct programs, conferences, and post-season games.
**National champion team seasons, Hiesman Trophy winners, consensus first-team All-Americans, should start two levels higher than given; conference champion seasons, All-Americans, and other major national award winners should start one level higher than given.
***Based on the highest level coached; coaches who have won a national championship should start two levels higher than given; coaches who have finished a season in the top 10 of a major poll or won a conference championship should start one level higher than given.
****Facilities that have always been primarily practice facilities should start one level lower than given. Facilities that have served as the home site for multiple national champion team seasons and/or regularly hosted a top-tier (BCS/top-10) post-season game should start two levels higher than given; facilities that have served as the home site for one national champion team season and/or regularly hosted a post-season game should start one level higher than given.
*****National player of the year or MVP awards (e.g.
Harlon Hill Trophy) should start two levels higher than given; other major national awards (including positional awards, coaching awards, All-America teams, and national halls of fame) should start one level higher than given.
Often, as an article grows, sections of it may be spun off as separate articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). When this is the case, the sub-topic should generally be one importance level lower than the parent article, or infrequently the same importance level. Only in exceptional cases will the sub-article be of higher importance than the parent article. Among others, this rule applies to a team history ( History of Ohio State Buckeyes football) and lists of bowl games by team ( List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games) relative to the team article; football by conference ( Big 12 Conference football) and lists of champions by conference ( List of Big Ten Conference football champions) relative to the conference article; bowl games by season ( 2010–11 NCAA football bowl games) and yearly rankings by season ( 2010 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings) relative to the association season article.
The matrix above may look complicated, but keep in mind that this WikiProject has nearly 30,000 articles in it. The more explicit we can be as to how the articles should be assessed for importance, the easier it will be to apply an assessment scheme, and the fewer arguments are likely to result. With such a matrix, it should be relatively simple to assess the importance of even a stub article, it being necessary only to determine the applicable category, the level of competition, and whether any special considerations apply. cmadler ( talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Changes made. cmadler ( talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Cmadler, thanks for all your work here and for kicking off the matrix. The following is a list of things missing from your matrix that ought to be added in:
Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Per what Dirtlawyer has said above, iconic head coaches of major programs (current or historical), e.g. Paterno, Bowden, Bryant, Neyland, Hayes, Shembechler, Yost, Stagg, Camp, Warner, Heisman, Dodd, Royal, Wilkinson, Switzer, Osborne, Sutherland, Zuppke, Parseghian, Rockne, etc..., should be top priority. These guys have been the faces of college football. Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at articles importance rank recently? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Top-importance_college_football_articles ...I think that we might have one or two more important articles to get to than say, the 1901 Michigan Wolverines. 199.190.61.128 ( talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add links or footnotes on the importance section to explain the terms "FBS AQ" and "FBS non-AQ"? I added the FCS one, but the other distinctions are not obvious to folks outside of the project. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)