Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
College football Project‑class | |||||||
|
I think finally the title will more appropriately be something along the lines of "Forfeits and vacations" rather than just "vacated victories". The NCAA policy on forfeits is pretty clean, and it's easy to include guidance here too; plus given that the NCAA sometimes vacates victories, and sometimes vacates games, makes the narrow title "vacated victories" confusing and too confining. But rather than clutter up folks' watchlists with another move, I'll hold off on changing anything until the article is done (and we've had a chance to discuss it). JohnInDC ( talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to allow discussion (if needed); I think the term used should be "vacancy" rather than "vacation", as that seems to better match wording used by the NCAA. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I am intending to work a bit more with "anomalies", to set up the problem(s) clearly and then introduce the media-supplied solution smoothly, at least as to series records - I have some ideas there and it's just a matter of the words falling into place. I'm not quite as confident about drafting the actual editorial guidelines, though, because when it comes down to it, I'm not exactly sure what the essay / we should be recommending. This is for the most part the practical problem of coming up with actual, express, "use these words in this format" guidance. (I have included the beginning of a sample infobox, which may be useful as a guide.) In principle, I think:
relevant articles should reflect what the NCAA says the records are, where they do say; along with annotations that clearly indicate how they were changed (i.e. what isn't counted that had been before - the "breadcrumbs");
where the NCAA doesn't maintain the record and / or has said nothing, e.g, series records and streaks, series records should reflect "no contest" (wins and losses both out) and streaks should reflect - well, I'm not sure yet;
all the foregoing should include, somewhere, links to both any relevant substantive articles on the NCAA decision relating to the particular contests, as well as this essay; and
articles reporting historical facts (how many points were scored, who scored them, who "won" the game before the results were changed, etc.) shouldn't be changed, except to report on or link to later problems and the NCAA's action.
I've left it all commented out because I don't think it's yet good enough to become visible, even in an express draft. And at this point I'm not sure where it should be taken anyhow - again, what words, what examples, the rest. So I invite other editors to take a crack at "editorial guidelines" and see if they can improve it. Let's see if the hive mind can come up with something useful there. As for the rest of the article - I'm content to keep playing with that on my own for a bit, if others are content to let me. JohnInDC ( talk) 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The issue at this point is not what the sources say but how, as editors, we should take what (little) we have that bears directly on some of these questions and weave it into the existing articles. We need Editorial Guidelines, and my comments above were designed to start the discussion. What do we say when some of a team's wins (but not its opponents' corresponding losses) are vacated? What do we say when the NCAA rules are silent on a subject and the unofficial treatment of an issue is largely a matter of inference from similar, but unrelated pronouncements? It is a confusing area and we need to figure out the least possibly confusing way of presenting it to the reader who hasn't got the time or the patience to muddle through all the permutations. It's bad enough that the NCAA's rules are confusing and inconsistent, and that we're forced to draw our own (quite arguably synthesized) conclusions from bits and pieces of articles - let's not make it worse. I laid out a few suggestions above; we can start with them. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Convention_for_vacated_wins on convention for displaying vacated wins in the body and particularly the infoxbox of articles. Any consensus reached could lead to clarification in this essay as well. Please provide your input.— Bagumba ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The NCAA's 2011-2012 policy states, "In compliance with the intention of the Committee on Infractions penalties, all team and coaches’ streaks (such as wins, postseason appearances, team statistical streaks, and so on) are terminated by the vacancy of a contest." This was not clear in the prior version of the policy and I'm editing the article to reflect the change. JohnInDC ( talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The 2011-12 policy says,
When a school voluntarily vacates a victory or victory, but the NCAA Committee on Infractions hasn't acted (as was the case for quite some time after Ohio State vacated its wins in connection with the Tressel matter), what should articles reflect? My own thought is to follow the NCAA's guidance and list the (still-official) record including the wins, along with a footnote of some kind indicating that the school has vacated however many victories, with a notation of what the school considers its record to be. Comments? JohnInDC ( talk) 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
College football Project‑class | |||||||
|
I think finally the title will more appropriately be something along the lines of "Forfeits and vacations" rather than just "vacated victories". The NCAA policy on forfeits is pretty clean, and it's easy to include guidance here too; plus given that the NCAA sometimes vacates victories, and sometimes vacates games, makes the narrow title "vacated victories" confusing and too confining. But rather than clutter up folks' watchlists with another move, I'll hold off on changing anything until the article is done (and we've had a chance to discuss it). JohnInDC ( talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to allow discussion (if needed); I think the term used should be "vacancy" rather than "vacation", as that seems to better match wording used by the NCAA. Thoughts? cmadler ( talk) 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I am intending to work a bit more with "anomalies", to set up the problem(s) clearly and then introduce the media-supplied solution smoothly, at least as to series records - I have some ideas there and it's just a matter of the words falling into place. I'm not quite as confident about drafting the actual editorial guidelines, though, because when it comes down to it, I'm not exactly sure what the essay / we should be recommending. This is for the most part the practical problem of coming up with actual, express, "use these words in this format" guidance. (I have included the beginning of a sample infobox, which may be useful as a guide.) In principle, I think:
relevant articles should reflect what the NCAA says the records are, where they do say; along with annotations that clearly indicate how they were changed (i.e. what isn't counted that had been before - the "breadcrumbs");
where the NCAA doesn't maintain the record and / or has said nothing, e.g, series records and streaks, series records should reflect "no contest" (wins and losses both out) and streaks should reflect - well, I'm not sure yet;
all the foregoing should include, somewhere, links to both any relevant substantive articles on the NCAA decision relating to the particular contests, as well as this essay; and
articles reporting historical facts (how many points were scored, who scored them, who "won" the game before the results were changed, etc.) shouldn't be changed, except to report on or link to later problems and the NCAA's action.
I've left it all commented out because I don't think it's yet good enough to become visible, even in an express draft. And at this point I'm not sure where it should be taken anyhow - again, what words, what examples, the rest. So I invite other editors to take a crack at "editorial guidelines" and see if they can improve it. Let's see if the hive mind can come up with something useful there. As for the rest of the article - I'm content to keep playing with that on my own for a bit, if others are content to let me. JohnInDC ( talk) 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The issue at this point is not what the sources say but how, as editors, we should take what (little) we have that bears directly on some of these questions and weave it into the existing articles. We need Editorial Guidelines, and my comments above were designed to start the discussion. What do we say when some of a team's wins (but not its opponents' corresponding losses) are vacated? What do we say when the NCAA rules are silent on a subject and the unofficial treatment of an issue is largely a matter of inference from similar, but unrelated pronouncements? It is a confusing area and we need to figure out the least possibly confusing way of presenting it to the reader who hasn't got the time or the patience to muddle through all the permutations. It's bad enough that the NCAA's rules are confusing and inconsistent, and that we're forced to draw our own (quite arguably synthesized) conclusions from bits and pieces of articles - let's not make it worse. I laid out a few suggestions above; we can start with them. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Convention_for_vacated_wins on convention for displaying vacated wins in the body and particularly the infoxbox of articles. Any consensus reached could lead to clarification in this essay as well. Please provide your input.— Bagumba ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The NCAA's 2011-2012 policy states, "In compliance with the intention of the Committee on Infractions penalties, all team and coaches’ streaks (such as wins, postseason appearances, team statistical streaks, and so on) are terminated by the vacancy of a contest." This was not clear in the prior version of the policy and I'm editing the article to reflect the change. JohnInDC ( talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The 2011-12 policy says,
When a school voluntarily vacates a victory or victory, but the NCAA Committee on Infractions hasn't acted (as was the case for quite some time after Ohio State vacated its wins in connection with the Tressel matter), what should articles reflect? My own thought is to follow the NCAA's guidance and list the (still-official) record including the wins, along with a footnote of some kind indicating that the school has vacated however many victories, with a notation of what the school considers its record to be. Comments? JohnInDC ( talk) 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)