Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject College football (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks[edit]

Gentlemen, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding User:DragoLink08's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch to continue his sock-puppetry for the past three years. Many of you have had to deal with Drago's disruptive editing of the color schemes for navboxes, infoboxes and tables. Your input at ANI is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

Bowl Game names with years[edit]

If we continue the current naming scheme of bowl game names with years, some article names will have the "wrong" year. For example, the 2014 Orange Bowl was played on January 3, 2014, but the 2015 Orange Bowl will be played on December 31, 2014. Similarly, the 2014 Heart of Dallas Bowl was played on January 1, 2014, but the 2015 Heart of Dallas Bowl will be played on December 26, 2014. There are others too. Is this an issue? Or should we just continue with the current naming scheme? Mudwater (Talk) 15:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The precedent thus far is to dab the game with the month, such as: 2010 Alamo Bowl (January) and 2010 Alamo Bowl (December). A hatnote can be used to further reduce confusion. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Conference Membership Tables[edit]

I have noticed some movement in the Conference Membership Tables on conference pages, and I was wondering if there is/should be a set format title, and composition for conference membership tables. I have noticed differences in the Atlantic Coast Conference#Member schools, Southeastern Conference#Member universities, Big 12 Conference#Member schools, Missouri Valley Conference#Member schools, and several Division II such as Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association#Member schools Heartland Conference#Member schools, Division III, and NAIA. Should they all include Titles, Sports, City Population, Mascot etc. If there is a precedent that has already been set I would like to know. Should all conferences include the same types of information. Thanks, UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed User:Corkythehornetfan, User:72.177.1.128, and User:‎Msjraz64, have been involved editing these tables recently and I think this is the forum to settle this so that we can reach Wikipedia:Consensus, specifically on the university rankings.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the "Rankings" section should be in there because that is dealing with the academic portion of a school. If it was talking about the academics of the athletes, then I would probably support it, but it isn't. I think that all conferences should have the same table layout... maybe someone could create one where you just have to fill in the blanks with the correct information? Or is that possible? CorkythehornetfanTalk 16:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Here the headers of the Big 6 conferences membership tables. Getting these in harmony would set the stage for the other conferences. Note, I have removed citations and superscript text from the header text shown below. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
ACC: Institution Location
(Population)
Founded Type
(affiliation)
Undergraduate
Enrollment
Postgraduate
Enrollment
Nickname Colors Mascot
or symbol
Joined
ACC
ACC
Division
BigEast: Institution Location Founded Joined Type Enrollment Nickname Colors US News Ranking Endowment
BigTen: Institution Location
(Population)
Founded Joined
Big Ten
Type Enrollment Endowment Nickname Colors Division I
Varsity Teams
NCAA Championships
(As of January 1, 2014)
Big Ten
Championships
(As of December 21, 2013)
Football
Division
Big12: Institution Location
(Pop.)
Founded Type Enrollment Endowment Joined Nickname Colors Mascot Varsity
Sports
National
Titles
Pac-12: Institution Location
(Population)
Founded Type Enrollment Endowment Nickname Colors NCAA Team
Championships
SEC: Institution Location
(Population)
Founded Type Enrollment Endowment Joined Nickname Colors Mascot

After seeing the above I definitely would be for some sort of consensus on standardization. —  dainomite   18:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So how should these tables be set up: in my opinion I like the SEC or the the Big 12 setup, although for lower divisions I believe that national titles could be a problem with many of these teams having national championships in the NAIA or other divisions. I think varsity sports should definitely be included, as well as population for the locations for all conferences. Note: the SEC splits up their teams by division so that would remove an ACC and Big Ten column, and I think the number of conference championships in the B1G table could be in a separate table on its own. To Corky's point I also have my reservations on the national ranking but, some conferences are a little more than an athletic organization. I know some of them also have an Academic Consortium. These points are just my opinion though.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jrcla2 posted on the basketball project that he thinks the ACC and SEC tables are good models.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked up a few football pregame game notes at all levels and in the quick fact box about the opponent all listed the school, location, founded, enrollment, nickname, colors, and joined conference. Other facts were listed which varied but nowhere did I see population, endowment, type, or U.S. news ranking. When I am looking at an athletic conference page, I am looking for information about sports. When someone is looking for information about a school's academics, they will look on the school's page not the conference they belong to; with the same situation about a town's population. If you want to compare rankings and endowment, create a "list of" page. I believe the members table should be compact and be just the school, location, founded, enrollment, nickname, colors, and joined, if the table starts getting crowded with too much information it becomes cumbersome. Personally, I don't even look at the tables that are so big that they can't fit on my screen and also are dominated by wasted white space. The IP user currently adding the U.S. news rankings is technically using the wrong terminology. The schools listed as "not ranked" do have a ranking, it's just not published. I have much much more to say about this topic and will gladly share if permitted. Thank you. Msjraz64 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Msjraz64 I don't see why you shouldn't say what your full opinion, after all that is the point of this discussion, and because of the differences you and others have had with that IP is why I thought it was important to try and sort this out and is why I believe it is important that you chime in.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think population should be included. Is it city population, metropolitan/micropolitan area population, designated media market population, county/parish population, or what? It seems like so many different population standards are being used in the tables. I don't think a specific population is a defining characteristic for institutions because the universities are not defined by borders. Location yes, population no. -AllisonFoley (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I also do not think endowment should be included. The biggest reason is that it's not comparing apples to apples. Many schools have systemwide endowments that are being claimed for one institution within the system, which is inaccurate and misleading for this purpose. Many other schools, especially outside of the Power 5 conferences, do not have an endowment listed in the NACUBO survey. Lastly, what does endowment have to do with an athletic conference? If any financial figures should be included in these tables, it should be the athletic budgets, but the problem with that is that the private schools are not listed in the USA Today database. -AllisonFoley (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I also do not think national titles should be included in the table. First, there is significant controversy regarding major college football national titles since the NCAA does not sponsor it. As mentioned above, most NCAA Division I teams have moved up from the NAIA, Division II/small college, and/or I-AA/FCS, which would suggest that those national titles are not equal to NCAA DI national titles. In addition, the NCAA did not sponsor women's championships until the 1980s. Before that, women's titles were awarded by the AIAW, and there was some overlap as well. If any titles are included in the table, I think it should be conference titles from that conference. However, with so much realignment, that may be a misleading figure since the various schools joined in different time periods, and it doesn't account for their history in other conferences. -AllisonFoley (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:AllisonFoley, your're talking about national titles but the same can be said for conference titles. I see in the football section of C-USA that Tulsa has 35 conference titles and Western Kentucky has eleven. How can Tulsa have that many titles in a conference that is only nineteen years old, and WKU has titles in a conference they have yet to be a member of? Msjraz64 (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Conference Membership Table Proposal[edit]

Here's my proposal, left-to-right:

Institution Location
(Pop.)
Founded Joined Type Enrollment Endowment Nickname Colors Varsity Teams Division
University of Florida Gainesville, Florida
(126,047)
1853 1932 Public 51,474 $1,295,313,000 Gators          [1] 20 Eastern

Explicitly removed or consolidated:

  • Mascot or symbol
  • US News Ranking
  • Undergraduate Enrollment, Postgraduate Enrollment -> Enrollment
  • NCAA Championships, National Titles, NCAA Team Championships
  • Big Ten Championships

Naming standardization:

  • Location (Pop.)
  • Enrollment (all types, undergrad + postgrad)

Callouts/Questions:

  • This addresses the screen width issues with some cuts.
  • ACC is showing System Affiliation within "Type" which seems to be very low value-add, or obvious.
  • Endowment is being reported as system-wide, when not available for the particular school. I don't see a problem there.
  • Seems like team and individual, league, division, national/NCAA and non-sanctioned (crew) championships have enough complexity for their own table.
  • The Varsity Team count can be in Conf context or Total (including independent, in another conf, etc). So how to designate when they aren't the same? ala "18/20"
  • Division to be used when it has multi-sport context (ie, in Pac-12, it is only a football scheduling convention and is covered in the football section).
  • Sortable columns seem preferable. The Southeastern Conference shows a grouping/coloring issue, which can be addressed as seen in Atlantic Coast Conference. If the "majority" of game scheduling is at the Division level, it argues for the SEC-style grouping.
I'd support this table, however, I would get rid of the population in the location column. CorkythehornetfanTalk 02:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Drop the colors and the pop, Then I would support this table format.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 04:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I like that proposal as is, it looks orderly. I believe that colors are necessary. I like the pop but it wouldn't break my heart to see it go.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion of endowment and population. There is a major problem with claiming systemwide endowments for individual institutions. For example, the University of Texas System's endowment in the NACUBO study combines endowment data for 15 different institutions. Why should UT Austin get to claim endowments from UTEP, UTSA, Texas-Arlington, Texas-Pan American, etc. when those schools are members of different conferences? Systemwide endowment is not the same as university endowment. It's inaccurate and misleading to include systemwide endowment into these tables. In addition to NACUBO reporting systemwide endowment, many NCAA institutions are not included in the study. As stated before, endowments are irrelevant to athletic conferences. If any financial figures should be included, it's the athletic budgets, not the endowment. There is also no reason to include population under the location. The location is sufficient on its own. The only relevant population is the enrollment. -AllisonFoley (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
AllisonFoley is absolutely on point above. I also oppose inclusion of endowment and population per her arguments above. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What does the inclusion of school colors to the tables really bring to an article about a sports conference, are these colors related to the conference in a way that is more then just being the colors of the schools that are members? Cause if their not related to the conference in any form other then being the colors of member schools then I see no reason for them being there. Thoughts?--Dcheagletalkcontribs 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

With all do respect I always thought this table was introducing the schools within the conferences, and that would definitely include colors. That is what you see on TV when an OU, Auburn, or Louisiana Tech game is televised. Eliminating that and using your logic that colors aren't necessary to fit an institution's or conference's profile, then should we eliminate enrollment figures? Does it really fit FSU's athletic profile to mention their 39,000 students compared to Wake Forest's 8000? What does that have to do with athletics or the ACC? Should we include what type of institution they are? What difference does it make when the school was founded? A school's colors have much more to do with athletics and what is seen on the field than certain other information on the table. I believe that colors fit the purposes of an "athletic institution table" than certain other information. I think that all the other information I brought up should be included. I see the earlier point about system wide endowment and believe that is a valid point. I hope this didn't come off in the wrong way, but using that logic I think eventually the table would only include. Institution, Location, Number of Sports, and Division.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
User:UCO2009bluejay, that phrase says it all; introducing the schools within the conferences. The members table is equivalent to the lead paragraph of all wiki pages with some basic quick facts about the composition of the conference. Msjraz64 (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you just get rid of all the info? Why is it more important to list when a school joined a conference...rather than how the school is ranked academically? I just don't get why y'all want to hide information. The population numbers don't mess anything up. These are basic facts to give people an idea of how these schools measure up against each other...and their conference mates. NOW, I have to go to three or four different pages to get the same info that was contained here....on one page. Thanks for making it harder to look at these schools and conferences at a glance. Oh, and all the hours I spent adding some of this info. Just for some person behind a desk to disagree because of how it looks physically. Give me a break. I won't be coming here any longer to do my research. I have had enough of y'all changing things and taking information away from the reader. Thanks for screwing things up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.6.154 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2 based upon discussion[edit]

Based upon discussion, is this a more updated and suitable table? (Colors discussion pending).

Institution Location Founded Joined Type Enrollment Nickname Colors Varisty
Teams
Division
Clemson University Clemson,
South Carolina
1889 1953 Public 21,303 Tigers           19 Atlantic
Duke University Durham,
North Carolina
1838 1953 Private 15,591 Blue Devils           26 Coastal
North CarolinaUniversity of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill,
North Carolina
1789 1953 Public 29,390 Tar Heels           27 Coastal
  • Note I have taken out the Military Heritage on Clemson and the Methodist affiliation on Duke. Other than the colors I think this is the table that is being constructed (except for the colors discussion).UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I think school/team colors are pretty core to a member's identity and useful, top-level data points that warrant inclusion in these tables. On the technical side, we should make use of Template:CollegePrimaryHex and Template:CollegeSecondaryHex to standardize the coding of the colors and make sure they sync with other instances on other articles and navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - The two deltas are the removal of Population and Endowment. Population is present in 5 of 6 of the Big 6 conferences. It contrasts the universities' presence in a metroplex, city, vs small town. Additionally, it is widely implemented in the extended, longtail of conferences precisely because it provides relevant context. Same answer with Endowment -it is widely implemented the existing conference pages, and the Template:Infobox university, because it provides context about the university and this section is obviously a summary of the university including athletics.
To the expected complaint of reporting of system-wide numbers within Endowment, there are three obvious options: 1) leave as-is (which notes that the value is system-wide), 2) note as "N/A" (or equivalent) as the info isn't publicly available, 3) remove entirely. The narrow argument that since this data isn't available for a small minority of schools, doesn't support the position that it should be removed entirely for the common case. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I will refer to my previous comment and add other thoughts regarding some categories. Population has no relevance. The local population does not equate to the fan base of any school. Why add population for college conferences when it is not done for pro leagues? A column for varsity teams and championships is only duplicating information. All conferences have a section that covers all the various titles and the "sponsored sports by school" tables detail the number of varsity sports a school has. For NCAA D-I, I would encourage a "conference academics" section that would include a table showing AAU status, type (affiliation), endowment, U.S. news rankings, and other related academic categories. This area would be of high importance for the conferences that have academic requirements to become a member. Anything dealing with academics for NCAA D-II, NCAA D-III, and NAIA would have no relevance since these conferences are formed based on geography and budgets with very little to no consideration given to academic standards. There is also no need for a "division" column. The style used for the Southeastern Conference should be used if a conference uses divisions for multiple sports including football, otherwise the regular members table is sufficient. The conferences that have divisions in football only already have a table in the football section showing the division split. Colors may not seem important enough to include but how many times have you gone to the stadium or arena, even in high school, and see the banners of all the schools in the conference. Maybe thought of as an extension of the conference's visual identity.

Proposal 3[edit]

Comment - Breaking this proposal into it's own section, as it was lost in the comments of the above section. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go for that. It looks cleaner! CorkythehornetfanTalk 21:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I really think we need to be certain of which format will be utilized. I know there are differences of opinion and only one person has commented since the most recent proposal. Some of these templates will need to be updated July 1, and an editor is already adding teams to conferences that aren't members of it yet. E.g. adding Louisville to the ACC even though they are still a representing the American in the CWS, adding Appalachian State, Georgia Southern to the Sun Belt etc.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - I also really like what Msjrz64 has done. When you look at any prospectus, media guide, or game notes, the information you will find about each school includes location, founded, nickname, colors, and enrollment. Simply add in the year the school joined because that is very important, and we are good to go. The only minor change I would suggest is making the school names bold and slightly shading the first column to make it look like the top row. I don't find the total number of sports sponsored pertinent for the membership table. All of that info is detailed sport by sport further in each article. Often times schools sponsor sports that the conference does not sponsor. -AllisonFoley (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - This removes relevant content and associated citations which are seen in many (but not all) conference articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose- Each conference is different, so I find myself in agreement the with reasons given by User:UW Dawgs... ALSO am opposed to User:Msjraz64 making the changes as outlined in his proposal without a consensus being reached... GWFrog (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - UWDawgs used this rationale "re-add Endowment, per existing consensus implementation" to add endowment to the C-USA page. Do you have a link to the discussion that lead to this existing consensus? I haven't seen this discussion about C-USA. I'm not opposed to having all of this extra information on the conference page, but I don't think it belongs in the basic membership table. The way it is now, there is too much information in the table that it is squeezed with text wrapping. Like someone mentioned above, I think adding an academic measures table further down in the article would be an agreeable compromise/solution. I don't find endowment especially relevant to an athletic conference membership table. I still don't understand why some insist on endowment being in the membership table when athletic budget is a much more pertinent financial figure for an athletic conference article. As I stated above, the endowment numbers being used now are not accurate. Sources being used include US News and NACUBO which report different figures for supposedly the same endowments. NACUBO uses systemwide endowment for many schools, and many other schools aren't listed at all. The current endowment figures are not apples to apples comparisons. Also regarding the C-USA article, the population figures being used are misleading. It has the same population for Miami as Boca Raton. Cities are listed in the table, but it appears that metro/micropolitan area populations were added to the table. I'm not sure how it's done on other articles, but I don't trust any of them because of the way it's been added to the C-USA article. It's true that every conference is different like GWFrog said, but I think there is basic information like Msjraz64 proposed that is inherent to every school and conference that should be included in a standardized membership table. I think the extra information that we can't reach consensus on can be included in another section of the conference article. -AllisonFoley (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Support If the varsity sports are included on their own table as all DI, and most if not all D-II (and provided the lower division tables are made) then I have no objection to this proposal. I would like to see type, but I don't have enough of an objection to it being left out to oppose this proposal. After the "institution wide" argument, it seems that all but one editor is opposed to endowment at this point. I think that this proposal best fits what we need the table for. My only reservation is that the division outlines seem a bit odd if you click the sort arrows. There are arguments in this discussion (so I won't need to link these) that the lower divisions should follow the major conference tables, and the point is that ALL conferences need standardization, and not a special case for CUSA or any other conference. When do we know when consensus is reached so we can move forward with standardization and move on?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose In that each conference is different, each conference's membership is different, and each should have its own membership format. I can see the reasons for the elimination of both academic ratings and endowments, but I also see the need for the inclusion of items such as conference titles (as long as it is only for the conference in question)... Fredref123 (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose While I believe that there should be a standardization of the membership table, the tables created by Msjraz64 removed necessary information in my opinion. I would like to thank Msjraz64 for their work though. I agree with previous responses in this discussion that the membership tables serve almost as a de facto media guide for the conference's respective member institutions. As such, the tables should include enough encyclopedic information about the members to suit curious minds. NEMESIS63 | talk | 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4[edit]

No divisions:

Institution Location
(Population)
Founded Joined Type Enrollment Nickname Colors
University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida
(249,562)
1963 2013 Public (SUSF) 59,770 Knights          

Divisions:

Institution Location
(Population)
Founded Joined Type Enrollment Nickname Colors Division
University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida
(249,562)
1963 2013 Public (SUSF) 59,770 Knights           East

Above is my proposal for a standardization of the template, which is currently in use in the American Athletic Conference article. It provides enough at-a-glance information about the member university's but also doesn't overload the page or reader, or provide nonencyclopedic information. Academic information such as endowment and rankings should be provided in an "Academics" section, which numerous conferences already have. In addition, another column could be added on the right for sortable divisions (east, west, atlantic, coastal, etc.). NEMESIS63 | talk | 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The above format was NOT in use on the AAC prior to the recent edits of the last 2 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Athletic_Conference&oldid=614972281 UW Dawgs (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Correct. What is seen on The American page currently is updated based on both the membership changes effective 7/1 and some of the changes by Msjraz64. The two major differences are the consolidation of enrollment and the removal of mascots. This was the last edit before the changes by Msjraz64, which can be seen here for comparison. NEMESIS63 | talk | 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I think population figures are irrelevant based on the discussion in the previous proposals. While I'm not opposed to Type (most of which are obvious), I think that adding the systems to the Type column is totally irrelevant and unnecessary. Systems aren't in conferences. Individual institutions are. The membership section should be only about individual institutions, not the population of their city or anything about their system. This goes back to individual institutions claiming the endowment for their entire system. I still believe proposal 3 is the best. If particular info isn't important enough to be included in the quick facts in team or conference media guides and game notes, then it's really not notable enough to include in a membership table. Any of the extraneous information can be added to another section in the article if some are determined to keep that info in the articles. -AllisonFoley (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rankings template[edit]

The current template we're using for rankings on season articles, Template:NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements, is really messed up. We need to separate this template into four different ones, because different years used different polls, and therefor require different templates. The first will just have AP and Coaches' rankings, and it'll be used for seasons pre-BCS, aka pre-1998; the second will have AP, Coaches' and BCS, and will be used for seasons from 1998 to 2004 (last year without Harris Poll); the third will have AP, Coaches', BCS and Harris, and will be used for 2004-2013 (end of BCS); and the fourth and final will have AP, Coaches' and CFP, dropping BCS because it doesn't exist anymore, and Harris, because it won't be used anymore. I honestly have no idea how to go about doing this, but this needs to happen, because the current template literally doesn't make sense on any CFB season article for any year. Kobra98 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the existing template can be modified so that each ranking displays only when populated? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that'd work for 1998-2013, where you could just turn off Harris Poll from '98-'04, but before and after those years would be kinda ridiculous. In 20 years, we shouldn't be using a template that still has a setting that allows you to put in rankings for the BCS poll. And for the thousands of articles pre-1998, we shouldn't have the Harris and BCS on those either. Kobra98 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to have four separate templates one will work just fine. The current template just needs to be modified. I will take a look and see what I can do to fix the issues.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
To fallow up on my above comment. After looking at the templates code and the code that makes that code work it should be pretty easy to hide the other polls in articles pre bcs, cfp, harris and articles post bcs. I however will need to rewrite the code to make the current template work the way it needs to without completely messing up the pages that the templates already in so this will take sometime to do. But once its down we'll have one nice template that can do every thing we need it to do, and not have the need for four templates.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm telling you, it'll make more sense to at least create two, with the second one not having the Harris and BCS. In 10, 20, 30 years, we don't need to still be using a template with a poll on it that was only used for 15 years. That's just ridiculous. Kobra98 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Your not understanding this the poll will be hidden you wont see it unless you fill in the parameters for it. I've all ready done some mock ups here on how it will look.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I see. For the final post-BCS box, you don't HAVE to put the CFP rankings on the poll5 section do you? Can't you just put it on the third one? Kobra98 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Once I get the new code wrote up things will be listed in new orders. I'm trying to use existing code just in a new way so once its done things will be simple to use and it will hide only the things that need to be used.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 00:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject College Football At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move at Kevin R. Wilson[edit]

For any college football editors who might be interested, I have opened a requested move at Talk:Kevin_R._Wilson#Requested_Move. 99.185.58.50 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Clair Bee coaching tenure?[edit]

Does anyone have a reliable source that can confirm Clair Bee coached the 1929 and 1930 football teams at Rider University? That he coached there is not in question, it's a matter of it's just 1930 or if he also did in 1929. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with article name (DAB issue)[edit]

Tomtomm3 noted in this edit that Tom Moore (American football) is a different person from the college coach who served as an Assistant at Clemson and head coach at Gardner–Webb and The Citadel. I went to see about creating a page for the collegiate coach, and see that there is already a Tom Moore (American football coach). Does anyone have a suggested dab should I use to distinguish our third Tom Moore? Billcasey905 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FCS national champion team navboxes?[edit]

What are everyone's thoughts on the existence of Category:NCAA Division I FCS champions navigational boxes and all of the team navboxes found in it? I know we have these for FBS, and for Division I men's basketball, but is it worth having these for the FCS level? Jrcla2 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Each of these have been created in the last three days by a lone editor. Consider this when reacting to any content or formatting issues. Jrcla2 did a nice job of neutral phrasing, I'm trying to make the same callout re current content. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any big formatting issues here. These were modeled off the pre-existing FBS navboxes and formatted in a fashion consistent with those. UW Dawgs, what are your issues with the content? As for whether we need these navboxes at all, I have mixed feelings. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't trying to be cryptic. Particularly re content (players, coaches), was highlighting that these were three days new and likely had not been reviewed by other editors. Each has 3~10 links to player/coach articles. That may or may not be definitive per instance. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Support - Notable, second highest level of college football, champions decided on field via playoffs. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Qualified support -- I have no problem with FCS championship navboxes in principle, but I question their practical usefulness. The purpose of the championship navboxes is to provide a convenient set of links and covenient navigation method for notable athletes and coaches from a given championship team. For Division I FBS championship teams, there are typically 30 or so players and coaches who have Wikipedia articles, but I expect the number will be more like five or six for the typical FCS championship team, and certainly nothing like a majority of the 22 starting players. I suggest someone should do a survey of the last four or five FCS champions to see how many links each team would have before we start generating mostly empty navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD regarding individual regular season CFB games[edit]

Greetings, sports fans. Please be advised that I have submitted an AfD nomination for the recently created Primetime Drama, an article about the 2007 Florida-LSU regular season college football game. As I believe that the discussion regarding the notability of of individual regular season CFB games will be of general interest to most WP:CFB participants, I invite everyone's participation in the AfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD articles for individual high school and college football games?[edit]

Hi, y'all. Here's another AfD of general interest to CFB editors: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraut Bowl (a high school football rivalry article). It may be time to have a policy discussion here on the WP:CFB talk page because I have discovered several relatively new editors beavering away at creating individual CFB game articles, which we generally frown upon. Please feel free to express your reactions below, and to participate in the linked AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch more high school football articles ripe for deletion here. See also the associated templates (e.g. Template:2012 MIL Football Standings). Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

National Championships[edit]

I understand that Division I FBS national championships are not official, but can we at least set a precedent for all FBS football program articles to follow? Currently, the Texas Longhorns football article (they are certainly not the only ones, this is just an example) has 2008 as an unclaimed championship. That's ridiculous. I propose that we use the official NCAA FBS record book as the source to put unclaimed championships on these articles. They have a list of major selectors, and teams for every year. What do you guys think? Kobra98 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Kobra, that may be someone's idea of a joke or protest. As you may recall, 2008 was the year Texas beat Oklahoma, and Oklahoma won the Big-12 and was invited to the BCS championship anyway, and then lost to Florida in the BCS game. Florida got the trophies, and finished No. 1 in both the AP and Coaches polls, as well as the overwhelming majority of the minor selectors (see here. Texas finished No. 4 and No. 3 in the major polls, but did get two national championship selections from two minor selectors I've never even heard of. If the guys who edit the Longhorns page want to put the 2008 "unclaimed national championship" in the infobox, I'm kind of speechless -- certainly the UT athletic department doesn't claim it. Personally, I think the "unclaimed" parameter should be deleted from the infobox template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That's the problem; it's not just a joke, and there are many pages with things like this. I've tried to take 2008 off of there, but they keep putting it back on. I think we should set a precedent so that only those listed here, on pages 74-79, should be put on Wikipedia. Kobra98 (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Kobra, I will sign on to any standard you can get a majority of WP:CFB editors to agree to. The problems are (1) agreeing to a standard and (2) then trying to enforce it. It would be a lot simpler to simply remove the "unclaimed" parameter from the infobox template, and it would avoid a lot of arguments over enforcement. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Because of the nature of FBS national championships, I think the parameter should be left. Now I don't know much about settling an issue like this, so where do I present this to get CFB editors to agree to it? Wouldn't that be here, on the talk page of WikiProject College football? Kobra98 (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This discussion might find a more involved audience at Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. Cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Peer review - possible GA/FA contender?[edit]

With football season just around the corner, I wonder if there's any interest in getting the College Football Playoff article formally reviewed up to standards, perhaps to be an FA candidate sometime this fall (or at least GA status before then), given its importance as a topic in the football world. I've been smoothing and tweaking it for awhile now (hopefully not too CRYSTAL), and I think it's gotten to be in pretty decent shape, though it's still rated Start class. I was hoping somebody could give me some feedback.

One area that's important but unaddressed is the history and the old systems — a concise but adequate summary of the BCS-era drama and general teeth-gnashing over the years. User:Dcheagle has begun writing some of that history [User:Dcheagle/FixitboxXI on this draft page]. There are sections from Plus-One system and College football playoff debate that should probably be included, though those articles likely need a makeover.

I've never made a run at GA/FA before, so I'm sort of unsure of the next steps for this. Thanks for any help! Woodshed (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ University of Florida, UF Identity, Signature System. Retrieved December 26, 2012.