Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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) 10:24, 25 January 2013‎ (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:, 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
Founded Type
Nickname Colors Mascot
or symbol
BigEast: Institution Location Founded Joined Type Enrollment Nickname Colors US News Ranking Endowment
BigTen: Institution Location
Founded Joined
Big Ten
Type Enrollment Endowment Nickname Colors Division I
Varsity Teams
NCAA Championships
(As of January 1, 2014)
Big Ten
(As of December 21, 2013)
Big12: Institution Location
Founded Type Enrollment Endowment Joined Nickname Colors Mascot Varsity
Pac-12: Institution Location
Founded Type Enrollment Endowment Nickname Colors NCAA Team
SEC: Institution Location
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
Founded Joined Type Enrollment Endowment Nickname Colors Varsity Teams Division
University of Florida Gainesville, Florida
1853 1932 Public 51,474 $1,295,313,000 Gators           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)


  • 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 (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
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
Founded Joined Type Enrollment Nickname Colors
University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida
1963 2013 Public (SUSF) 59,770 Knights          


Institution Location
Founded Joined Type Enrollment Nickname Colors Division
University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida
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. 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)

  • Hey, y'all, I just unarchived this discussion that was just auto-archived. I think we need to finish this discuss. Can we do so? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Regular seasons games of questionable importance so as to warrant an article[edit]

Two new articles were created in the last few days by the same editor: 2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M football game and 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida football game. He is also the creator Primetime Drama, which is set to be merged per a recent AfD. Those two new articles looks like the fall in the same boat. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles are also stylistic nightmares and a virtual tutorial in bad writing. This diff reflects my ridding one of the articles of dozens of uses of that horrific "would" conjugation that way too often finds its way into articles about historic (i.e., past tense) football games. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've had my eye on this for several weeks, guys. If you want to see what's going on, it's about building out the SEC on CBS navbox: Template:College Football on CBS. As you will note, there are several recently created single-game articles linked from the template, only one of which has been submitted to a recent AfD. In my opinion, most, if not all of this material should be merged with rivalry, team season and primary team articles, and the stand-alone game articles deleted. Most of these games are "notable" (and I use the term loosely) for a single play or catch-phrase that fansites or blogs have tried to attach to the particular game. And that's true for 80 to 90 percent of single-game stand-alone articles I have seen out there. Given that several of these are Bama games, I suggest we get Patriarca's opinion and proceed accordingly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My understanding of the established consensus of WP:CFB for single games is for the creation of articles for bowl games and a very limited number of significant regular season games (i.e. "Games of the Century", Hail Flutie, etc.). To open the floodgates for this is worrisome to me in that much of what could be produced would reek of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Further, I feel this discussion should also include all individual articles created for the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. With that, here are my initial thoughts on the Bama articles. The Bama-A&M games seem like perfect examples of both WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS due to their media hype and Manziel connections. For the Iron Bowl articles, I am neutral on their inclusion and defer to consensus. Both the Newton comeback and Kick Six were very significant in the history of the rivalry and will forever be referenced by each fanbase specifically. However, I do not know if this notability will extend any further outside of the fanbases with the passage of time. Patriarca12 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My take on it is that if there is someething unique about the game I might go ahead and create the article. I normally wouldn't seek to delete any game article but I don't encourage articles about a game just to have an article. I'd rather see such details in a season article for a team, or season article for a conference if smaller schools.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WKU/Western Kentucky naming[edit]

A discussion I've restarted at the main athletic program page, if anyone's interested. Kithira (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Playoff semifinal games[edit]

This is the first year of the college football championship game, and this year the semi-final games will be the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl. Fine, but the article about the 2015 Rose Bowl says more specifically that this year it will have the #1 vs. #4 ranked teams, and the article about the 2015 Sugar Bowl says that it will have the #2 vs. #3 ranked teams. Do we have a reliable reference for that? Mudwater (Talk) 11:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ucla90024: Hello. It looks like you added that information, here and here. Do we have a reference for this? Mudwater (Talk) 22:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's an article on FBSchedules, dated two days ago: "College Football Playoff Protocol Released". In the "Parings for Semifinals" section, it says, "When assigning teams to sites, the committee will place the top two seeds at the most advantageous sites, weighing criteria such as convenience of travel for its fans, home-crowd advantage or disadvantage and general familiarity with the host city and its stadium. Preference will go to the No. 1 seed." That really makes it sound like the committee is going to decide which game gets #1 vs #4, and which game gets #2 vs. #3, only after the final rankings are set. So I'm going to update the two articles accordingly. Mudwater (Talk) 12:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's another source that strongly supports the idea that the decision will be made after the final rankings are in. From USA Today, an article from April 2013 called "Questions and Answers for the College Football Playoff": "The selection committee's goal will be to protect the top two seeds from playing in road environments in semifinal games. For instance, if Southern Cal was the No. 1 seed and LSU was the No. 4 in 2014, that semifinal could be played in the Rose Bowl but not the Sugar Bowl." Mudwater (Talk) 13:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ucla90024: I see your edit summaries, one of which says "No. 1 team plays earlier game usually". That's logical, but as you can see from my previous posts in this section, apparently that's not the case here, as the sources I've mentioned indicate that the CFP committee will decide which teams play in which games based on other factors, after the final rankings are announced. Mudwater (Talk) 18:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ucla90024:, and other interested editors: I've enhanced the references for the 2015 Rose Bowl article so show that which teams will play there -- either #1 vs. #4, or #2 vs. #3 -- will be determined after the season. The same references can be used for the 2015 Sugar Bowl article. Mudwater (Talk) 13:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Two more AfDs for CFB "rivalry" games[edit]

I nominated another two "rivalry" games for deletion:

In my opinion, neither of these games has significant in-depth coverage as a rivalry in independent, reliable sources to establish its notability, and neither of these series satisfies anyone's definition of a traditional college rivalry. Please feel free to share your opinions on the AfD pages. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Update: Both "rivalry" articles listed above were deleted today at AfD as non-notable per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Thanks to you all WP:CFB editors who participated in the AfD discussions. I expect that we will be nominating other non-notable CFB "rivalry" articles for AfD in the coming days, but I will post the next set of proposed AfDs on this talk page to vet them among all CFB editors before submitting them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Small college coach navboxes[edit]

Hello all- I have periodically taken a run through some of the small college football coach navboxes such as those found at Category:NCAA Division III football coach navigational boxes. I have found a couple of issues. First, many seem to be out of date (some for as long as three years). Second, a large number have only one or two coaches who have articles. Is anyone maintaining these? A couple (like Template:Dickinson Red Devils football coach navbox) are very well maintained and someone has taken the initiative to create articles for each coach. Others are barren. I guess my other question is if templates for every small college is necessary/a good idea? I don't think every head football coach meets GNG (certainly at the D1 and some lower division schools they do, but not across the board), and if no one is going to maintain them, what is the purpose? I'm not going to AfD anything, just tossing it out to the WikiProject to raise the concern. Rikster2 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that all DI head coaches are going to meet GNG and believe that coaching navboxes are helpful for DI programs. Not sure navboxes are needed for all lower level programs, but if they are actively maintained I see no problem with them. If not maintained for two, three or more years, then the navboxes become problematic and the creator should be nudged to update them. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Rikster asked me to weigh in on these Division III football coach navboxes. Several weeks ago, we had a discussion about "FCS national champion team navboxes" above. Consistent with what I said then regarding articles, lists, seasons, navboxes, etc., for lower NCAA division programs, I have no problem with these navboxes in principle, provided they are consistent with other applicable policies and guidelines. I recognize most of the editors who created these navboxes -- Jweiss11, Jrcla2, Paulmcdonald, Patriarca12, Strikehold, prominent among them -- and I'm not going to be the editor who upsets the apple cart and nominates any of these navboxes for TfD. That having been said, many if not most of these navboxes do not satisfy one or more of the guidelines of WP:NAVBOX, including the fact that virtually none of these navboxes are supported by a stand-alone Wikipedia article (either a list of coaches or, at a minimum, an article about the football team that lists the coaches), and many if not most these navboxes are overwhelmingly red links. The basic function of navboxes is to navigate among existing articles, and many of these navboxes fail that fundamental test. We -- i.e. many of us WP:CFB editors -- fought hard for the general acceptance of navboxes as a replacement for clunky succession boxes for Division I CFB and CBB coaches. We learned a lot about navbox policy and guidelines in the process of that fight, and I've got to say, guys, that we appear to be fudging those rules in regard to many of these Division III football coach navboxes. Be aware that many of these could be fairly deleted in TfDs that properly applied the consensus policies and guidelines . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What happens is that what today is a small division III college could easily have been a major player back in the day (University of Chicago, Yale, etc) and what was a small school back then could have grown to a major player today (Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Boisis State). Then we have the issue of small college coaches that achieve the big time (Jerry Kill, Dennis Franchione) or go on to earn Hall of Fame status (Bennie Owen and Ted Kessinger, both from tiny little Bethany College in Kansas). Then you've got college coaches at small schools that go on to other notable roles (like Andrew Frank Schoeppel). What ends up happening is that it just seems that college football coaches tend to pass WP:GNG for a crazy variety of reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Paul, I certainly didn't mean to imply that ALL small college coaches wouldn't meet GNG. But a good number of the templates I was working (and only got through "H" of the D3 coach templates) had 20-30 coaches on the template and literally one or two blue links. I really don't believe that all or even most head coaches from places like Earlham College and Concordia Chicago would meet GNG. The issue I see is that many of the templates aren't updated and I'd question the notability of a lot of the redlinks on them (and frankly don't ever see a lot of those turning into articles). The way we have handled it at WP:CBBALL (and I don't claim this is the perfect solution) is that we had a major initiative a few years back to create head coach templates for every D1 school (even past ones like the U of Chicago and NYU). Beyond that, we have a total of 20 head coach templates below that level (D2, D3 and NAIA) - about half of which are former D1 programs (by comparison, college football has 328 templates below the FBS/FCS level, not including defunct programs). Occasionally someone will feel itchy because, say, Jim Valvano has templates for every other coaching stop so they create Template:Johns Hopkins Blue Jays men's basketball coach navbox - but are most of the other guys on that template really notable? And if not, why is there a template? Like I said, I am not here to tell you guys what to do - I am a big believer that the projects can police themselves within the WP guidelines on most of this stuff, I'm just raising the issue so you guys can deicde if you want to address it or not. I'm as pro-sports as you'll find around here so I don't bring up notability questions from a place of trying to reduce WP articles on athletes/coaches. Rikster2 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking that you were. I'm just throwing in some ideas and thoughts over the last (gasp) seven years I've been doing this...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris Gragg[edit]

Chris Gragg is a current featured article candidate. If you have the time, please do take a look. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has a subscription to, I could use "Lumberjacks prove they are for real", "Warren stars shine", and "Gragg makes pledge to Nutt" from the aforementioned source for Chris Gragg, a featured article candidate. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

New team captains navbox[edit]

Hey, ya'll, here's a newly created CFB navbox: Template:Vanderbilt Commodores football captains navbox. I would like to get the reaction of other WP:CFB editors . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. Once there's one of them, they will proliferate and cover co-captains, tri-captains, then team MVPs, etc. At core, though, I think it's a bad idea because there's not a sufficient basis for presuming that every captain of every college football team is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. I would support nipping this in the bud. Cbl62 (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Didn't even notice before, but there are 9 co-captains listed for the 2013 season alone! Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete. What's this thing even sourced to? - BilCat (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I am opposed to this idea. Clever thinking and creative... but if the project supported it, I fear we'd lose credibility in notability discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
FTLOGPDTASAP is going to be my new abbreviation for For The Love Of God Please Delete This ASAP. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • TfD UPDATE: The example of a CFB team captains navbox identified above was deleted at TfD today. I assume, based on the pre-TfD discussion several section above, that we do not want to expand our existing list of WP:CFB-sanctioned succession navboxes at this time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

College football All-America campaign (1889-1969)[edit]

There has been much discussion recently about which articles and templates should be deleted, and there's definitely room for that discussion. However, what's been lacking is a concerted effort to expand Wikipedia's coverage of key college football topics. It's striking that we still don't have articles about every consensus first-team All-American. As of this morning, we had roughly 90 holes from 1894 1889 to 1969. If anyone wants to adopt one of these missing All-Americans, I'd be happy to chip in with whatever information I can find. (I've taken the first four and created them today.) So, consider claiming one (or more), and let's see if our project can turn all the red links to blue links by the time the 2014 college football season comes to an end. If you take one on, please strike it from the list below so we know it's done. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

James P. Lee - 1889 halfback (Harvard); Phillip Stillman - 1894 center (Yale); John Hall - 1897 end (Yale); Lew Palmer - 1898 end (Princeton); Charles Romeyn - 1898 fullback (Army); William Lee - 1901 guard (Harvard); Arthur Tipton - 1904 center (Army); Joseph Gilman - 1904 guard (Dartmouth); William Erwin - 1907 guard (Army); Patrick Grant - 1907 center (Harvard); Edwin Harlan - 1907 halfback (Princeton); John Wendell - 1907 halfback (Harvard); Peter Hauser - 1907 fullback (Carlisle Indian School); Ed Lange - 1908 quarterback (Navy); William Goebel - 1908 guard (Yale); Bernard O'Rourke - 1908 guard (Cornell); Charles Nourse - 1908 center (Harvard); Hamilton Corbett - 1908 halfback (Harvard); Frederick Tibbott - 1908 halfback (Princeton); Edward Hart - 1911 tackle (Princeton); John Logan - 1912 guard (Princeton); Ray Keeler - 1913 guard (Wisconsin); Neno DaPrato - 1915 halfback (Michigan State); Clinton Black - 1916 guard (Yale); Frank T. Hogg - 1916 guard (Princeton); Charles Bolen - 1917 end (Ohio State); Henry Miller - 1917 and 1919 end (Penn); Alfred Cobb - 1917 tackle (Syracuse); Eugene Neeley - 1917 guard (Dartmouth); Leonard Hilty - 1918 tackle (Pitt); Lyman Perry - 1918 guard (Navy); Ashel Day - 1918 center (Georgia Tech); Jack Depler - 1918 center (Illinois); Wolcott Roberts - 1918 halfback (Navy); James Weaver - 1919 center (Centre College); Charles Carpenter - 1919 center (Wisconsin); Charles Carney - 1920 end (Illinois); Tim Callahan - 1920 guard (Yale); Charles Way - 1920 halfback (Penn State); Tom Woods - 1920 guard (Harvard); Malcolm Aldrich - 1921 halfback (Yale); John Fiske Brown - 1921 guard (Harvard); Wendell Taylor - 1922 end (Navy); Pete MacRae - 1923 end (Syracuse); Jim Lawson - 1924 end (Stanford); Dick Luman - 1924 end (Yale); Henry Wakefield - 1924 end (Vanderbilt); Joe Pondelik - 1924 guard (Chicago); Ed McMillan - 1925 guard (Princeton); Ed Hess - 1925 guard (Ohio State); Ralph Chase - 1925 tackle (Pitt); George Tully - 1925 end (Dartmouth); Harry Connaughton - 1926 guard (Georgetown); Bud Boeringer - 1926 center (Notre Dame); John Charlesworth - 1927 center (Yale); Bill Webster - 1927 guard (Yale); Ed Hake - 1927 tackle (Penn); Irvine Phillips - 1928 end (California); Seraphim Post - 1928 guard (Stanford); Don Robesky - 1928 guard (Stanford); Edward Burke - 1928 guard (Navy); Ray Montgomery - 1929 guard (Pitt); Ted Beckett - 1930 guard (California); Dallas Marvil - 1931 tackle (Northwestern); Milton Summerfelt - 1932 guard (Army); Clarence Gracey - 1932 center (Vanderbilt); Paul Geisler - 1933 end (Centenary); Frank Larson - 1934 end (Minnesota); Chuck Hartwig - 1934 guard (Pitt); Bill Bevan - 1934 guard (Minnesota); Jack Robinson - 1934 center (Notre Dame); George Shotwell - 1934 center (Pitt); Chuck Sweeney - 1937 end (Notre Dame); Andy Bershak - 1937 end (North Carolina); Esco Sarkkinen - 1939 end (Ohio State); David Rankin - 1940 end (Purdue); Phil Tinsley - 1944 end (Georgia Tech); Paul Walker - 1944 end (Yale); Jack Dugger - 1944 end (Ohio State); Ben Chase - 1944 guard (Navy); Bill Hackett - 1944 guard (Ohio State); Bob Jenkins - 1944 halfback (Navy); Dick Hightower - 1951 center (SMU); Johnny Karras - 1951 halfback (Illinois); Elmer Willhoite - 1952 guard (USC); Frank McPhee - 1952 end (Princeton); Don Dohoney - 1953 end (Mich. St.); Crawford Mims - 1953 guard (Mississippi); Paul Cameron - 1953 halfback (UCLA); Bo Bolinger - 1955 guard (Oklahoma); John Witte - 1956 tackle (Oregon State); George Deiderich - 1958 guard (Vanderbilt); John Guzik - 1958 guard (Pitt); Danny LaRose - 1960 end (Missouri); Dick Arrington - 1965 guard (Notre Dame); Freeman White - 1965 end (Nebraska); Jim Breland - 1966 center (Ga. Tech); Laverne Allers - 1966 guard (Nebraska); Rich Stotter - 1967 guard (Houston); Tom Schoen - 1967 def. back (Notre Dame); Don Manning - 1967 linebacker (UCLA); Adrian Young - 1967 linebacker (USC); Jim Barnes - 1968 guard (Arkansas); . Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Cbl, I'll adopt the following seven:
1. Ashel Day - 1918 center (Georgia Tech);
2. Henry Wakefield - 1924 end (Vanderbilt);
3. Clarence Gracey - 1932 center (Vanderbilt);
4. Phil Tinsley - 1944 end (Georgia Tech);
5. Crawford Mims - 1953 guard (Mississippi);
6. George Deiderich - 1958 guard (Vanderbilt);
7. Jim Breland - 1966 center (Ga. Tech); and
8. Rock Perdoni - 1970 def. tackle (Georgia Tech).
FYI, I've been working on clean-up of All-American articles from the present backward for the last three years, and I had no idea that someone else was working on finishing out the articles for old-time All-Americans. The consensus All-Americans are core subjects for WP:CFB, and it would be great if all CFB project members could put some effort into stubbing out this last group of them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If I mark out any red links, I am working on them. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Alfred Cobb – 1917 (Syracuse) article already exist. It is under Alf Cobb. It is stub and need some work. 09er (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all. 17 20 24 down in less than two days! Let's keep plugging away. Cbl62 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
While other people argue over trivial matters, others actually get stuff done lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Another one is already exist. James Weaver - 1919 center (Centre College) It is under Red Weaver. I also found a good source but won't be able to update for a few days. 09er (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent work. Thanks, 09er. Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Another one Malcolm Aldrich is Mal Aldrich source
Woo hoo! It's nice when they're already there. Cbl62 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
People should do community projects like this more often. Look how much we've got done. Most of the time editors just spend their time wandering around aimlessly anyway. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. We've made huge progress (35 38 red links turned blue) in less than three days. With a few more people grabbing one or two, we might be able to complete the list before the college football season kicks off. Cbl62 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
One more that already exist. Edward Hart - 1911 tackle (Princeton) is Ed Hart. source I will try to expand. 09er (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Get User:Crazypaco's help with Shotwell. CrazyPaco is a big Pitt guy, and should know the Pitt-specific references, and it looks like there are 4 or 5 other Pitt All-Americans listed above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Eugene Neeley turns out to be a very interesting case. He became a consensus All-American despite having only one arm. If anyone wants to help build this one up, it might be a good candidate to be featured on the DYK portion of the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite four days into the campaign, and we've knocked out 54 red links. Thanks to WikiOriginal-9, Dirtlawyer1, 09er, MisterCake, and Jweiss11 for all their contributions. If everyone can grab one or more of the remaining red links, we should be able to finish this! Cbl62 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We are making such good progress that I took the liberty of moving the goal post backward to 1889 and then forward to 1971, which added another few players. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You are Lucy and we are Charlie Brown. 09er (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to disrupt our current endeovor , there are 61 red links after 1971. I'm doing these. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We have now eliminated 73 redlinks from the list above. Only 37 left. Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Impressive, I've been working on red links past 1971, so there is progress there too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In one week's time, we have filled in over 100 red links, which is pretty darn impressive. Big round of applause for everyone who's been working at this. Only two more redlinks left in Part I ... who's gonna grab 'em? Cbl62 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I will try to get Don Manning started today. Who gets the honor of doing Barnes? 09er (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a stab Jim Barnes. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Mission accomplished! All redlinks are now gone! Cbl62 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Great work, all. Just for future reference, Shotwell, Hess, Callahan and Lange are the only ones missing vital date info now. Fiske Brown is missing exact dates. I'm working on them. Connormah (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles needing work[edit]

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked into Shotwell and he is a tough one. Nothing on the SSDI but I did add an approximate year of birth. Last mention of him was a news article stating he was in a VA hospital in 1973 or 1974. Could have died shortly thereafter or fairly recently. Connormah (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cbl62 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cbl, I need some of those magical search skills to find (a) Clarence Gracey's birth (~1911) and death dates; (b) Phil Tinsley's exact birth date (~1923) and a diligent search for obituaries to semi-confirm he's still alive; and (c) a diligent search for obituaries to semi-confirm Crawford Mims is still alive. I'll continue to try to plug the holes with my available resources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Gracey was straightforward. Left a note on your talk page re Tinsley. Cbl62 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cbl62 (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Not so easily answered. There are multiple possible matches: (1) Anthony P "Tony" Cristiani, born July 9, 1951 (has lived in Florida and North Carolina), (2) Antonio J Cristiani, no DOB available (has lived in Miami, FL), (3) Anthony F Cristiani, born July 11, 1953, has lived in New York, NY), and (4) Anthony A Cristiani, born June 21, 1956 (has lived in California -- also least likely due to DOB). Can't be confident which one is correct. If you could track down better information on a middle name or initial, that would help. Cbl62 (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It would also be dangerous to guess because of BLP issues. Cbl62 (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cbl, I would be grateful if you could locate a full name for George Deiderich by means of your usual magic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
All the records I find just list a middle initial "R." He may have just had the middle initial. Cbl62 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ashel M. Day, nicknamed "Bum" Day. Born c. 1897. Cbl, we're missing DOB, POB, DOD, POD, degree information. Anything you can find would be helpful. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cbl62 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sources are much harder to come by for more "modern" players. DiNardo is more complicated yet, because "Larry" is undoubted his true given name. Tried a couple variations, but didn't find anything definitive. There's a Gerald L. DiNardo (17 Jun 1950 - 10 Jul 2013) that's possibly linked, but not clear enough to put into main space. Cbl62 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Lawrence C. DiNardo is the best I can come up with. Here is a link to his Résumé at his current law firm. It lists a phone number but calling him is probably original research. Shoot, I guess he can go with out. 09er (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Having the correct name and middle initial did the trick. DOB now in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Connormah (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
My database searches don't find a match. Cbl62 (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Simon B. Gray[edit]

Not directly related to this project, per se, but of tangential interest to some members here as an NCAA Division I athletic director. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon B. Gray. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Cal–UCLA rivalry[edit]

Aside from Cal–UCLA rivalry's title not adhering to naming conventions, is this a notable cfb rivalry? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I haven't researched it but, as a UCLA alum, my sense is that it was probably a bigger rivalry historically (1930s - 1950s) than in the modern era. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, this "rivalry" includes the two most prominent state universities in California, both of which have been competitive members of the same sports conference for almost 100 years. I think Cbl's assessment is probably right, that this was bigger in the past, but that doesn't nullify the series' past and present notability as a rivalry. There are at least three dozen other CFB "rivalry" articles I would nominate for AfD before I would even consider doing the archives research to make an educated decision on Cal-UCLA. Like Cbl, my gut instinct tells me this one survives as a notable rivalry with plenty of margin for error. I suggest we move it to the properly titled "Cal-UCLA football rivalry," and focus on lower hanging fruit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess the question is if this rivalry has been documented in reliable sources over time. If it was a big deal in (say) the 50s it could still meet notability standards since notability is not temporary. That said WP:NSPORTS makes a point of saying that rivalries aren't inherently notable. Most people would agree that Cal-Stanford and UCLA-USC are notable rivalries but this one probably needs some research to verify. Rikster2 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Another CFB "rivalry" article nominated for deletion discussion[edit]

A non-WP:CFB editor nominated another CFB rivalry article at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas-Baylor football rivalry. The opinions of WP:CFB editors are solicited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Another set of eyes on Central Michigan Chippewas football[edit]

Can I get another set of eyes on the current state of Central Michigan Chippewas football? I've tried to keep an NPOV on the article, but an anonymous user disagrees. Thanks. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Bump while the All-American checklist isn't getting updated. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Individual CFB team statistical leaders[edit]

Just saw this new class of articles being created by what appears to be a single editor: Ole Miss Rebels football statistical leaders. What are the reactions of other WP:CFB editors? I foresee potential problems with the notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as the general prohibition against statistics lists per WP:NOTSTATS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Cbl, how do you square that with WP:NOTSTATS, whereby articles which consist of list of statistics without sourced text are not supposed to exist? Or the failure to demonstrate the notability of the subject with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG? And, in particular, the failure to source these articles with anything other than the team media guides, which are not independent sources for purposes of demonstrating the notability of the subject? Am I missing something here, or is this an "I like it" situation? As has been mentioned before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a sports almanac, and stand-alone statistics lists start to look a lot like trivia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but it's always been my understanding that WP:NOTSTATS is guideline designed to apply to articles, which should be narrative in nature and not amount to mere regurgitation of statistics. I do not believe it has ever been applied to lists, where we have thousands of statistical lists in the sports world. List of college football coaches with 200 wins, List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in, List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game, List of NFL teams with fewest points scored, and on and on and on. Cbl62 (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been working under the understanding that lists are articles. And two out of the four articles you listed immediately above comply: they have significant introductory text and analysis. As does your List of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders. Several of the others are clearly non-compliant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where the article vs. list dichotomy is laid out, but it has long been recognized by the baseball project. For example, charts of player statistics are not allowed in articles about individual players, which are to stay narrative. Statistical listings, on the other hand, are set forth in stand-alone "lists" for all manner of baseball statistics. The baseball statistics template collects many of these lists. I've included it below, so you can see how widespread and accepted the practice is in the baseball project. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cbl, but I am familiar with WP Baseball's collection of list articles, many of which consist of a sentence or less of text. I've never had the inclination to rain on their parade, and have simply ignored an obvious issue. I do recall several baseball lists that were deleted at AfD when the article supporters could not produce quality sources to support the notability of the specific list subjects, and those AfDs were fairly blood affairs as two or three WP Baseball regulars were willing to defend the particular lists to the last man. Ultimately, those particular lists were deleted with 65%+ !vote majorities. Several of the long-time baseball guys actually know the notability guidelines pretty well, and also know how to bring a given list into compliance pretty quickly if they believe it's an important one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If possible, could you provide a link to the AfDs where baseball statistical lists were deleted? Cbl62 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the archive. The AfDs on baseball statistical lists have generally resulted in "Keep" decisions despite WP:NOTSTAT challenges. See runs scored champions, NL slugging % leaders, players with 2000 hits, to 500 home run hitters. The "Delete" decisions have generally come in cases of truly trivial lists. E.g. win leaders "by birthplace". Which ones were you thinking of? Cbl62 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • LOL @"List of Major League Baseball win leaders by birthplace"! That's excessive even in a sport fanbase known for its OCD fascination with stats and trivia. I can only imagine what they were using for sources -- or did it consist entirely of original research per WP:OR? Anyway, here is the multi-article AfD I had in mind: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting lineups. Six baseball lists got whacked as a result, and these weren't even close to being "core" lists for WP Baseball. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The issue you have raised involves two very different issues: (1) does WP:NOTSTAT bar the creation of such a list of statistical leaders? (and I think precedent shows pretty clearly that it does not), and (2) does the particular list cover a statistic/topic that passes GNG (and that is a question that would have to be answered on a case-by-case basis). Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My interpretation of NOTSTATS is that it's supposed to prohibit articles that are primarily lists of stats, with little introductory, explanatory or analytical text. If I'm right, these newly created articles clearly do not comply. One or two sentences of introductory text don't cut it. The nature and significance of the stats categories need to be explained, and some team-specific historical context and analysis should be there, too.
We agree on the notability analysis per GNG -- some team stats will make it and others won't. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't object to adding more introductory text, of course. I'm just trying to get the ball rolling right now, and then whoever can expand with text as they see fit. Jhn31 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Jhn, there about a dozen active editors who participate in WP:CFB, most of whom are busy with their own project to-do lists, as well as real life. We're all busy volunteers here. Do not expect someone else to take your newly created stats articles and "expand them with text as they see fit" to fix them. Adding columns of stats from media guides is the easy, fun part. You need to be prepared to make your new articles mostly compliant from the git-go. We do not need another 120 unsourced articles that need to be fixed by "someone else." If you're serious about this, I would be willing to provide advice on how to do it right -- assuming this is something a majority of CFB editors believe WP:CFB should undertake.
We also need to discuss how we are going to address the notability issue, which is going to be case-by-case, as Cbl62 alluded above. A program like Alabama, with a football-nutty statewide media and a national following is probably going to generate sufficient significant coverage of its career stats leaders to be notable. Vanderbilt? Well, that's going to be a much tougher call, and Ole Miss and Mississippi State are going to fall somewhere in between. If we're going to do this, we need a strategy going in, so we can defend these articles in AfD later, after a considerable investment of time and effort, as well as the not-insignificant annual maintenance these articles will require to keep them current and properly sourced. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I really don't follow your logic of "Alabama's stats leaders are notable enough, but Vanderbilt's might not be." If some of the SEC gets an article, it all should. I still think you are drastically underestimating how big of a deal media outlets make about these school records -- speaking of Vanderbilt, do you remember how much press Jordan Matthews got for blazing through Vandy's record book?
Lists like these are a reason people come to Wikipedia -- that's why there's so many baseball lists like this, and NFL lists, and other pro sports list. For example, both Ole Miss and Mississippi State's starting QBs this year have a chance to become the schools' career passing yards leaders before they are done. MSU's career receiving yards record may fall this year. People like to keep up with how close they are to breaking the record and see who they are surpassing. Jhn31 (talk) 20:25, August 24, 2014
  • Jhn, if you don't understand why Alabama stats leaders are probably notable and why Vanderbilt's stats leaders may or may not be, then you don't understand how notability is determined by the existence (or not) of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. You really need to read the guidelines and grasp the concept. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • <facepalm> Did I ever say that Vanderbilt and Alabama are of equal notability? Of course not... However, Vanderbilt and Alabama's statistical leaders are both notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia is my point. I don't know how closely you follow SEC football in particular, but Jordan Matthews' rise through Vandy's records was very well documented. I feel like these easily fit Wikipedia's level of notability -- it's not like anyone's writing one for Mississippi College. It's fine if you don't, but you shouldn't act like it's so obvious that anyone who disagrees must just not have a clue about what's allowed here and what's not. Jhn31 (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Jhn31: "Vanderbilt and Alabama's statistical leaders are both notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia." As I said before, Jhn, that remains to be determined by an evaluation of the significant coverage of these lists of team statistical leaders in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. When you omit any independent, reliable sources (i.e., mainstream newspapers, sports magazines, and books) from these newly created lists of stats, you are leaving the hard work to be done by someone else. Not every Division I FBS football program's stats leaders are going to be notable. Those are my points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course school records are notable. Schools able make a pretty big deal when someone breaks one. Any game where one of these records is broken will include a mention in the major media articles about the game. It's not like the articles I made list obscure stats like punt return yards or extra point percentages -- just the major stats that people care about.Jhn31 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI, Jhn, "notability" on Wikipedia has its own definition, which generally depends on the demonstrated existence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Generally speaking, newspapers, magazines, books, and other mainstream media articles count as independent and reliable sources, but NCAA, conference and team media guides, and other university publications and websites are not considered independent for purposes of establishing "notability" for stand-alone Wikipedia articles. You may want to have a look at WP:GNG and WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Where are you getting that this is obscure trivia only covered in media guides? Again, schools and media outlets make a big deal about these records. For example, this game article from focuses heavily on Anthony Dixon becoming MSU's all-time rushing leader, even getting the headline: I am familiar with the notability rules, and I am confident that these lists meet the guidelines and are consistent what it is found for other sports throughout Wikipedia. Jhn31 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Here are my $0.02 for what their worth. I do no necessarily have a problem with these types of lists if they are developed more in a manner similar to Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders. I feel this format at least addresses some of the WP:NOTSTATS issues and would easily pass WP:GNG as it is cited well in addition to having significant text to help provide context for the records later in the article. My issue is in the blanket creation of these types of articles without the time taken to add the necessary text to help address WP:NOTSTATS issues. In all honesty, I have the development of one of these types of articles on my list of "to dos" for Alabama one day, but have been focused on the expansion of individual Crimson Tide season articles for a while. I do appreciate the enthusiasm, but do wish more time was taken to improve upon what is already existing and in desperate need of sources and expansion. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Individual CFB team statistical leaders, part 2[edit]

  • I have added an introduction and quite a few references to Mississippi State Bulldogs football statistical leaders. I believe this should address issues that might cause the article to be challenged. What does everyone else think? Is it sufficient? I can add similar paragraphs, tailored to each school, to the other articles if people like this one. Jhn31 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't want to create too many of these until I get some feedback, but I've also added context to the Missouri article.Jhn31 (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify what you mean by capitalization? I didn't notice any differences, but I can fix it pretty easily, I'd think.
Other things we could do for consistency would include deciding exactly what should go in the written introduction (if that should even be consistent). The introduction I wrote for the Mississippi State and Missouri articles are briefer and focus on information that is not repeated later on in the tables. This contrasts to the new Alabama article, which feels almost needlessly wordy to me? Or do people feel like that level of detail is necessary?
Secondly, do we want to have consistency in which stats are included? The Alabama and Michigan pages include Rushing Attempts and Completions, which I did not include in any of the articles I uploaded. Do people feel those are necessary to include (I didn't really, but I will follow the consensus). Similarly, what about adding Total Offense (Rushing + Passing) or From Scrimmage (Rushing + Receiving)? I was considering adding those at least to the Mississippi State page, because a lot of MSU quarterbacks have also run for a lot of yards, and the Total Offense is a better indicator of the most meaningful offensive players over the years. Similarly, adding the From Scrimmage list better displays the effect of a running back like LaDarius Perkins, who also caught a lot of passes over his career.
Finally, do we want to have consistency in how the tables are created? I believe the tables in the articles I created are a little easier to understand (separating the lists with whitespace, and coloring the headings). Of course I don't consider myself an expert tablemaker and I'm certainly open to changing to a new design, but changing, for example, the Alabama tables to the format I created can actually be done really easily:
Rank Player Yards Years
1 AJ McCarron 9,019 2010 2011 2012 2013
2 John Parker Wilson 7,924 2005 2006 2007 2008
Rank Player Yards Year
1 AJ McCarron 3,063 2013
2 Greg McElroy 2,987 2010
Single Game
Rank Player Yards Year Opponent
1 Scott Hunter 484 1969 Auburn
2 Jay Barker 396 1994 Georgia
Etc. I like referring to the individual seasons the player played in the career lists, and I'm not sure if a sortable table is really necessary. Any thoughts? Is it even important to have consistent tables across the articles?Jhn31 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Jhn31, by capitalization, I'm talking about section headings like "Rushing Yards" (incorrect) vs "Rushing yards" (correct) and table headings like "Single-Season" (incorrect) vs. "Single-season" (correct). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters for more on that. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FCS ranking archive?[edit]

Does anyone have an archive of TSN FCS rankings from 2010? I'm currently doing this, and I'm trying to find if Dayton had a ranking before the final poll. Thanks!—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

An idea that could change HUNDREDS of article names[edit]

I have noticed that a call to change the name of certain teams such as Talk:Austin Peay State Governors and Lady Govs and Talk:Emporia State Hornets between team and Lady team names. But there is an editor who is calling to rename the articles Austin Peay Sports, and eventually University of Michigan Sports etc. Is there a specific reason that team pages are referred to as Oklahoma Sooners, Emporia State Hornets, Michigan Wolverines and not Oklahoma Sports or University of Wisconsin-Madison Sports? I personally like the conformity because I know what to expect on a specific page. So what should the names be, and why were they already posted as such? (Sorry if I opened a can of worms. BOOMER)! UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The naming pattern for college football articles is the well established consensus across at least the WikiProjects for college football, college basketball and college baseball, and all of the other college sports follow the same patterns. The only variations are those that you have noted above, where a minority of women's teams still retain some formulation of "Lady ____" in their official team names. These are not only the consensus naming conventions on Wikipedia, but they track the official names of the teams as well as majority practice in the major mainstream sports media. Anyone wanting to change the Wikipedia college sport naming conventions to something different is going to face an uphill battle based on the Wikipedia article naming guidelines (see WP:COMMONNAME), as well as the resistance of virtually all regular sports editors. Good luck with that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, this is what he appears to be talking about (see here, and here, and here, and here). FWIW, I totally agree that this is an off-the-wall proposal that flies in the face of all long-standing consensus of the college sports projects and WP:COMMONNAME. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the proposed "Hornets and Lady Hornets" move, or SMcC's proposal for "University of ______ sports?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the latter, I know this was set up the way it was for a reason. I will leave my opinion on this out of this thread. But, I just like standardization that is why I asked for the appropriate method.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it would not be the first time SMcC has kicked in the door where angels fear to tread; he's a self-styled expert on article titles, and has made himself quite unpopular by challenging existing naming conventions, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. What's your take on the "and Lady ____" proposal? I could go either way on it, depending on the preferences of the editors who work on the particular college's articles. If they add the "and Lady _____," then they also need to create redirects for the separate make and female team names, so nothing gets lost and readers can still find the articles easily. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well since you asked I would prefer to "exclude Lady____" but I could see how it is necessary. In the end I thought there was a purpose for the naming scheme. In the ESU talk page I didn't like the ____ athletics idea because it could cause many more problems than it solves. I wanted people who are experts on the topic to weigh in, even if they disagreed with either my POV on the lady or athletic issue. Like I stated earlier I am a sucker for orthodoxy. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the "Lady ____" may or may not be necessary on a case-by-case basis. I have noted that ESPN seems to intentionally avoid the "Lady ____" construction, so WP:COMMONNAME probably turns on how the hometown newspaper, regional media, and other national media usually refer to the particular women's teams. Some of these women's teams are quite adamant about keeping "Lady" in their team names, and who are we to argue otherwise? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, EJ and Bluejay, I left a comment on all four talk page discussions, which will hopefully put SMcC's off-the-wall renaming proposal to bed. If y'all have any more questions or problems with this, ping me. I've watch-listed all four talk pages, and will try to monitor the discussions until they close. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Idea why not have the "Lady _______" articles simply be a redirect to the main sprots artcile? Such as, Emporia State Lady Hornets redirects to Emporia State Hornets? And I'd further suggest that only be done for schools where two names actually happen--there are (to my knowledge) no Kansas State Lady Wildcats references, although they offer a wide variaty of women's sports under the name "Wildcats". This solution preserves the existing standard and honors those articles that have a difference.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Paul, that would work form me, but I am going to defer on the inclusion of "Lady ____" construction in the main sports program to those editors who work regularly with the particular sports programs in question. Since largely dropping out of favor over the last 30-odd years, the "Lady ____" formulation remains in use to a greater or lesser degree among a minority of women's college sports teams. Some feminists think the "Lady" distinction is sexist, while some of these individual women's sports programs and teams remain adamantly committed to keeping "Lady" in their official team names. I think my American universities (Florida and Virginia) are more typical, in that they have dropped the "Lady" from their official team names, but continue to use "Lady" whenever they feel like it. Fair enough. It could be as simple as including "Lady Gators" in bolded text at the outset of the Florida Gators article (with an appropriate redirect, as you suggest), but other programs and teams are more adamant about their use, and I see no reason why that cannot be accommodated in some form or fashion. What we don't need is entirely new and different scheme for naming of our American college sports articles as one editor has proposed in the four Requested Move discussions linked in EJGreen's comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to send an invitation for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

College football All-America campaign Part II (1970 - present)[edit]

Since the first part of the campaign worked so well (almostnow complete), I figured we may as well lay out the remaining consensus All-Americans. This Part II campaign has 63 red-linked consensus All-Americans from 1970 through 2007 who weren't originally part of the first campaign, including the ones that WikiOriginal-9 started in the past couple days. Again, feel free to help out, grab as many as you like, and strike them when you're done. If we fill out this list, we will have an article for every consensus All-American college football player! Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ernie Jennings - 1970 receiver (Air Force); Larry DiNardo - 1970 OG (Notre Dame); Don Popplewell - 1970 center (Colorado); Dick Bumpas - 1970 DT (Arkansas); Rock Perdoni - 1970 DT (Georgia Tech); Mike Anderson - 1970 LB (LSU); Bobby Majors - 1971 DB (Tennessee); Greg Marx - 1972 DE (Notre Dame); Ron Rusnak - 1972 OG (No. Carolina); Robert Popelka - 1972 DB (SMU); Bill Yoest - 1973 OG (NC State); Bill Wyman - 1973 center (Texas); Mike Townsend - 1973 DB (Notre Dame); Tony Cristiani - 1973 DL (Miami); Kermit Johnson - 1973 RB (UCLA); Booker Brown - 1973 tackle/guard (USC); Peter Demmerle - 1974 WR (Notre Dame); Marvin Crenshaw - 1974 OT (Nebraska); John Roush - 1974 OG (Oklahoma); John Provost - 1974 DB (Holy Cross); Larry Seivers - 1975 & 1976 receiver (Tennessee); Randy Johnson - 1975 OG (Georgia); Ted Smith - 1975 OG (Ohio State); Mike Vaughan - 1976 OT (Oklahoma); Joel Parrish - 1976 OG (Georgia); Al Romano - 1976 DL (Pitt); Bill Armstrong - 1976 DB (Wake Forest); Dave Butterfield - 1976 DB (Nebraska); Dan Irons - 1977 OT (Texas Tech); Tom Brzoza 1977 center (Pitt); Bob Jury - 1977 DB (Pitt); Greg Kolenda - 1979 OT (Arkansas); Ken Fritz - 1979 OG (Ohio State); Jeff Leiding - 1983 LB (Texas); Bill Mayo - 1984 OG (Tennessee); Mark Traynowicz - 1984 center (Nebraska); Tony Thurman - 1984 DB (Boston College); Rod Brown - 1984 DB (Okla. St.); Ricky Anderson - 1984 punter (Vanderbilt); Willie Smith - 1985 tight end (Miami); Peter Anderson - 1985 center (Georgia); Anthony Phillips - 1988 OG (Oklahoma); Jake Young - 1988 & 1989 center (Nebraska); Keith English - 1988 punter (Colorado); Bob Kula - 1989 OT (Michigan St.); Eric Still - 1989 OT (Tennessee); Chris Smith - 1990 tight end (BYU); Stacy Long - 1990 OT (Clemson); Maurice Crum, Sr. - 1990 LB (Miami); Carlton McDonald - 1992 DB (Air Force); Bjorn Merten - 1993 PK (UCLA); Terry Daniel - 1993 punter (Auburn); Ed Stewart - 1994 LB (Nebraska); Brian Robinson - 1994 DB (Auburn); Brian Lee - 1997 DB (Wyoming); Chad Kessler - 1997 punter (LSU); Rufus French - 1998 tight end (Mississippi); Joe Kristosik - 1998 punter (UNLV); Jason Whitaker - 1999 OG (Fla. St.); Rob Riti - 1999 center (Missouri); Andrew Bayes - 1999 punter (E. Carolina); J. T. Thatcher - 2000 DB (Oklahoma); John Sullivan - 2007 kicker (New Mexico). Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting fact here - Jake Young was killed in the 2002 Bali bombings. User:WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Great work, WO-9! Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
2 left and both have been claimed. Good work. 09er (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles needing work[edit]

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Rock Perdoni, fullest name available is "Renso G. Perdoni." Born c. 1948, somewhere in Italy, immigrated to the United States at the age of 6, apparently still alive. Has lived in Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia. Needs DOB, POB, and anything else you can provide from, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a listing for a Renso Perdoni, born 10 Dec 1947, living in Natick, MA, in 1991. Only match I found. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a pretty darn close match to me. Any other information available? What's the source -- is this U.S. Census data? Also, I omitted the fact that he also lived in Canada (played in CFL for three years). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Census data is only available through 1940. The information above comes from a generic public records database; it could be a phone book or something else. Didn't find anything further. Cbl62 (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I updated his page. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ken Fritz needs DOB and POB (maybe Ironton, Ohio)09er (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Next round of proposed CFB "rivalry" articles for AfD review[edit]

I would like to proposed the following "rivalry" series for deletion at AfD:


1. Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry - Not a traditional college rivalry, standard annual series between division foes;

  • Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete pbp 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Cake (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure about this one and Vandy/Kentucky. 74 and 86 meetings dating back to 1893 and 1892, respectively. Aren't these among the oldest ongoing series in the SEC? Even if not rivalries at present, it looks like they were more competitive series back in the 1890s to 1950s. Vanderbilt is one of the great programs in early football history. If not Georgia and Kentucky, then who are Vanderbilt's rivals? Cbl62 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62: Presently, Tennessee. Permanent SEC inter-division rival is Ole Miss Mississippi State since 1992, one of the better inter-division rivalries, too. Historically, Sewanee. My perceptions is that Vanderbilt and 'Bama have a fiercer rivalry than Vandy and Ole Miss -- matter of the pride of the once great vs. the now great, but I will let Patriarca12 speak to that. Everyone else in the SEC views Vandy as their little brother. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Just want to make sure that important historic rivalries aren't inadvertently deleted. Focus shouldn't just be on the past 50 years. Vandy was "big brother" back in the day. I dropped a note with MisterCake, as he's Wikipedia's resident expert on Vanderbilt football history. Cbl62 (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ole-Miss is arguably Vandy's biggest rival today, as we speak, with Tennessee as its biggest rival for all time. It seems misguided to say a rivalry must be competitive in terms of wins, as Vanderbilt-Tennessee shows (and Vandy-Sewanee, and Vandy-Ole Miss). Its nature was that Vandy practically always won, until Neyland and then the Vols practically always win. Though, because of this and Vanderbilt's recent cellar dwelling until Franklin, Ole Miss has had that competitiveness you certainly like to see in a rivalry. You would think Vandy and Bama would have a fierce rivalry given Wallace Wade, but it seems mostly short lived.
The Georgia rivalry was palpable in the times I cover, somewhere between a modern day UF-LSU in the 00's where they were just both very good teams that decade competing for the South (1920 & 1921 UGA and 1921 & 1922 Vandy, for example. They also both had fierce lines . Georgia had 4 All-Southerns on its line in '21 (Whelchel, Pew, Day, Reynolds), and Vandy had the number 1 defense in the nation in '22 and was about 10-deep on the line (Bomar, McCullough, Lawrence, Sharpe, Wakefield, Neely (end/LB on D), Bradford, Kelly, Morrow, Walker, Conyers, &c.), with Wallace Wade as line coach; and UF-Georgia, where there is something more approaching aversion to the other side for what must surely be various historical reasons, at least from the direction of Vandy to UGA. (cf. Ready for Athens Tilt; Rivalry Keeps Going &c.; UGA: The Junkyard Blawg Welcome to Georgia-Vandy 2.0, though the last one somewhat poo poos it, notice it references Georgia-Vandy as a known rivalry; ) It's still latent enough that Vanderbilt's victory over Georgia this year was much celebrated. Vandy is a rival with far more history with Georgia's than either of Clemson, South Carolina, or Tennessee. Georgia-Tennessee is more the kind of thing you speak of where it's just recent because of SEC alignment. Sewanee was just Vandy's first rivalry, not the only one now so long ago; for surely one can have more history than the team it played its second game ever against.
Though I can understand your point to bring up Kentucky and I could be jaded from what I research, I would even remove the Georgia rivalry before I removed it. It was a genuine rivalry (e.g. "Wildcats, Vandy Clash Saturday". The Tuscaloosa News. October 8, 1940. , "Vanderbilt at Kentucky". The Tuscaloosa News. November 11, 2006. ) with Kentucky every year going on at length about perhaps finally scoring on the Commodores. Kentucky, at least in the years I've covered, were competitive on defense, hence the lamentation for the rest. There were people from Tennessee on Kentucky (John J. Tigert), and from Kentucky on Vanderbilt (Tuck Kelly, Bob Rives). No doubt their relationship is why they were first to seek Wallace Wade. The rivalry also went into basketball, though I know less about it there, just like Kentucky-Tennessee (e.g. UK Rivals Tournament: #2 Tennessee vs #7 Vanderbilt, Kentucky-Vandy Is National TV Game) In recent times both teams have been in the cellar, and have thus been rivals on equal terms in a sense (just look at their winning percentages against other SEC schools compared to each other. cf. UK-Vandy lacks prestige, not personality, Mark Story: Why I relish UK-Vandy football ). Kentucky and Vanderbilt also both have some of the oldest playing surfaces in the South (cf. Stoll Field, Dudley Field, Sulphur Dell (first Vandy football game was here)). I would also add, if not Vandy, then who are Kentucky's rivals? After Indiana and Tennessee surely comes Vandy. Is Louisville considered more noteworthy just because it's intrastate and they made up a trophy recently? I feel pretty confident whoever first added them knew they were more than mere regular opponents. Both rivalries were around long before they were just division foes in the SEC, and with Georgia before any conference for that matter. I share the sense that deleting these may not be an insane proposition, but seems high-hanging fruit at best.
I've waffled over ever making a Michigan-Vandy football rivalry article for those matches between McGugin and Yost for the reason that I'm not sure of the status of things such as these. Cbl is right to say within Southern football pre-SEC (1932), which is to say the SEC and ACC and others which have probably faded into obscurity by now (e.g. Centre Praying Colonels), Vandy was surely no small player. The only Southern player on the Football Writers Association of America 1869-1918 Early Era All-America Team was Vanderbilt tackle Josh Cody. Vanderbilt end Lynn Bomar is often considered the first, or "one of the first" (more accurate, the handful of southern guys on Camp's list always claim they were the first (e.g. Bum Day. I think Strupper was probably the true first. Before Bomar I'm pretty sure it's all Tech and Centre players, so he'd be the first from today's SEC, for what it's worth.). So, perhaps erroneous but it shows its rarity and celebrated nature), Southern player to make Walter Camp's first team, in 1923. The other end Hek Wakefield made Camp's second-team in 1924. Camp dies in 1925. That dominant stretch from 1921-23 saw the Commodores lose only to Michigan and Texas,(while it's fluid) both are usually considered the two most winningest programs in history. Cake (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Cake. As for Mich-Vandy, the close relationship between Yost and McGugin made the series special, but I don't think a nine-game series (with Mich. winning eight) would warrant a stand-alone rivalry article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather than an article about Michigan-Vanderbilt (as an alum of the former this matchup does not resonate with me), perhaps an article about the contests between Yost and McGugin - denominated as such - would make more sense. JohnInDC (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That's quite fair that today it's no rivalry, and even then I'm sure Vandy viewed it as more of a rivalry than did Michigan, though part of that is because the series ended once Vanderbilt got a few breaks away from winning in 1922 and 1923. It died at its peak. All the contests were between McGugin and Yost, so it seems on its face an article about one would be an article about the other. An article on just the 1922 game could quite easily be done, but not sure on how those games important perhaps to Southern football are viewed elsewhere. Perhaps something about Yost's proteges on his page could address the whole series in some detail. Texas-Vandy is another rivalry I've restrained myself from making as there were few contests and long ago; it was Texas' annual matchup at the state fair for 7 years before the Red River Shootout started, and there were upsets on both sides. Vandy was a hot ticket in those days; they had to turn down many top schools for sheer lack of time to play them all in 1923. Princeton was one, hence the postseason contest with them in '23 presumably. Baylor had annual contests at the fair too (maybe the football games there need an article some day), including the first Southwest school to play one from the East when it got beat by Boston College.Cake (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@MisterCake: Once you've finished your analysis, could you please register a "Keep" or "Delete" vote for each of the two Vandy rivalry articles? As the resident expert on Vanderbilt, your final conclusions are important. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


2. Kentucky–Vanderbilt football rivalry - Not a traditional college rivalry, standard annual series between division foes;

  • Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete pbp 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep See above Cake (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

LSU-Mississippi State[edit]

3. LSU–Mississippi State football rivalry - Not a traditional college rivalry, standard annual series between division foes;

  • Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete pbp 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This one seems like pretty high-hanging fruit for a first round. This is described as LSU's longest rivalry, and they've played over 100 games dating back to 1896. Sure, LSU has dominated the series lately, but it looks like it was competitive back in the day. I agree that there's an undue proliferation of rivalry articles, but I would have started with a lot lower-hanging fruit than this. Frankly, when two major programs (in adjoining states, as well) have reached the century mark by playing 100 games against each other, I'd probably support possibly even consider whether we should have a rule of presumptive notability. That doesn't strike me as a "standard annual series." I'll try to do some research and report back. Dirt -- If you have already done research that you can share, that would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "High-hanging fruit?" Well, Cbl, how many active, genuine, meaningful rivalries can one team have . . . (1) Alabama-LSU, (2) Arkansas-LSU, (3) Auburn-LSU, (4) Florida-LSU, (5) LSU-Ole Miss, (6) LSU-Texas A&M and (7) LSU-Mississippi State? I would suggest that when a given team has more than three or four active "rivalries," then several of those "rivalries" probably are deserving of some critical review and analysis, and we will discover that one or more of these purported "rivalries" are not really traditional rivalries either to the student, alumni and fans or in the media. When more than half of a team's annual opponents are "rivals," that raises an eyebrow, and I believe the relative media coverage of the different "rivalries" usually bears that out. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be taking too presentist or recentist of a viewpoint. At any one point in a team's history, I would tend to agree that a team probably doesn't have meaningful, notable rivalries with the majority of its opponents. Given the last 30 years of results, it's pretty clear that LSU-MSU is not competitive (LSU has dominated the series during that period). But that doesn't mean it wasn't a significant rivalry historically. Having played 107 games against each other, this series appears to rank in the top 20 among the Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS history. (Yes, a series with such a long history strikes me as "high hanging" fruit -- though even high hanging fruit is sometimes rotten.) I haven't reached a conclusion yet, as I haven't done the historical research. If you have done so and could share it, that would save some effort. Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Recentist? Maybe, but I don't think this particular game series ever had a particular meaning for the LSU fans. Having just perused the other LSU "rivalries," I would suggest Auburn-LSU is also a likely candidate for critical review. I would also throw in Florida-LSU, which historically had the character of a strong game series rather than a traditional college rivalry -- but for the fact that it became Florida and LSU's permanent inter-division rivalry in 1992. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, but without someone actually checking the historical coverage for a series that is one of the oldest in the sport, I'm wary of deleting. Could you use your account to check on this one like you did for the Baylor rivalry game that was recently at AfD? I let my subscription lapse, or I'd do it myself. Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI - The historical rivalry is difficult to research since Mississippi State has gone by different names over the years -- sometimes known as Mississippi Agricultural & Mechanical of Missisippi A&M and who knows what else. Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with the MSU name history because Florida had an extensive history with MSU prior to 1992. A Google key word search for "LSU-Mississippi State rivalry" yields eight results -- three Wikipedia articles, one Wikipedia mirror article, one newspaper article about the baseball rivalry between the schools, and three fan blogs. A Google key word search for "LSU-Mississippi State football rivalry" produces 19 results, mostly Wikipedia mirror articles. No one has ever written a book about this series. The significant coverage about this series has not covered it as a rivalry. That being said, before this goes to AfD, I would do my usual full-blown BEFORE searches. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Google searches really don't cut it when it comes to the pre-internet era. But my search of ("mississippi state" LSU rivalry football) generated 157,000 results. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but they do give one some sense of what's out there. The art of any internet search is methodically running multiple variations on multiple-keyword searches, and for me, that takes a notepad and a fair amount of time. If good results are there, I can usually tease them out. BTW, your 157,000 Google results are not key-word restricted, and most of them are duplicates -- keep clicking on the numbered results pages at the bottom of the Google page until you come to the end and you will discover that you have a small fraction of 157,000 actual, non-duplicate results. And because you have not key-word restricted your search, you will also find you have a lot of non-relevant noise among the non-duplicate results. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


  • So, I spent the $9.95 for a one-day subscription to the New Orleans Times-Picayune archives, and so far I'm not finding coverage that would suggest the LSU-Mississippi State/A&M was ever a particularly notable rivalry. Unless there's a search you'd like me to run, I've spent as much time as I care to on this one. Unless additional sources are uncovered, I will leave this in the hands of folks more familiar with the SEC. I did find a number of articles rating "MSU-LSU" as the top intercollegiate baseball rivalry -- comparing it to Duke-NC in basketball and Mich-Ohio St. in football. Cbl62 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I don't know as much about LSU since Vandy didn't play them in the times I mostly cover, but the Times-Picayune is a very good source for Mississippi A & M football; and of course you think it'd be for LSU, though Tulane was big in those days and maybe they overshadowed them. If it's not there I'd say the least that implies is it was seen as a rivalry more so by LSU than Miss until one checks the Baton Rouge papers. Cake (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


4. Arkansas–Missouri football rivalry - New inter-divisional SEC rivalry beginning in 2014, could be notable in 5 to 10 years;

  • Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete pbp 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI There's a AFD up now on this article.--Daytona 500 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought your proposed procedure of posting/discussing here before sending to AfD was a good one. Not sure why someone decided to short-circuit the process rather than discuss here first. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a discussion going on here when I put the AFD up.--Daytona 500 18:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


5. Illinois–Missouri football rivalry - Not a traditional rivalry for either team, or a historically significant series;


6. Indiana–Kentucky rivalry - This is a basketball rivalry, not a traditional football rivalry, and the football text should be purged.

  • Delete football elements; Keep basketball elements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's a significant football rivalry too; there's been a trophy they fight over for at least a decade pbp 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This was Kentucky's original big rivalry, it crosses both sports; they're just both a lot better to the point of legendary at basketball. It shouldn't be hard to find newspapers speaking of the football rivalry in heated terms many years ago. Here's one from not so long ago which at least mentions the sense of it: Cats Replace Purdue As Hoosier's Chief RivalryCake (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose AfD on procedural grounds. There was, as PBP noted, a traveling trophy. It was a "bourbon barrel", and it was discontinued to due a drunk driving tragedy. Based on this article, rating Kentucky and Indiana the worst football coaching jobs in their conferences, I might suggest a new trophy in the image of a coach with an axe hanging over his head. But seriously, an AfD is not the way to go if you agree there is a notable rivalry between Indiana and Kentucky, but believe that it is limited to basketball. In that case, you could propose a "Move" of the article to "Indiana–Kentucky basketball rivalry". You could also propose editorial changes to the article (i.e., excising portions dealing with football). In either case, AfD is in my opinion not the proper venue for that sort of a discussion. Such editorial decisions are probably best addressed at the article's Talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cbl, I agree that AfD is not the proper forum to determine the content of a given article. My intent in raising these discussions, here on the WP:CFB talk page, is to provide an initial representative sample of some of the problematic "rivalry" articles that exist; this particular article has piggybacked a non-notable football "rivalry" on a basketball series that is notable for having been a rivalry in the past, if not the present, and it represents a subclass of problematic articles that have done this. There has been precious little standardization to the content and formatting of these articles, and very little scrutiny has been applied to the notability of the purported "rivalries." Like Justice Stewart's comment about obscenity, most experienced CFB editors know a traditional CFB rivalry when we see it; the challenge is to better define the notability standards for this class of articles so article creators will focus on genuine, traditional CFB rivalries that are notable in the future, and not some of the marginal game series for which articles have been created in the past. I think both a Requested Move discussion or the normal editing process are the proper processes, but I wanted to draw some attention to this particular kind of problem for future discussion and attention by WP:CFB participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose AfD for many of the foregoing reasons, but mainly because this is an editorial issue. There's not much harm in throwing in the football section into a larger (wholly proper) article so long as the subordinate section is not made up out of whole cloth. JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep In cases where the football rivalry between two programs is not significant or notable enough to warrant a separate football rivalry article of it's own, I have no problem incorporating the football elements as a section or sub-section of an overall rivalry article about the overall rivalry between the two school athletic teams, which is what appears to have happened here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

All of these articles involve one or more SEC teams. WP:NRIVALRY states that no rivalry is inherently notable, and must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The gloss on that, which most long-time CFB editors have accepted, is that the series most be notable as a rivalry, not merely as a long-time series.

Please express your reaction to whether we should keep or delete each of the identified series above, with a brief statement of your reason, in next seven days (by September 1, 2014). Only those articles on which WP:CFB members agree by majority !vote will be submitted to AfD. More suggestions of other CFB "rivalry" articles will follow next week. We will also review several CFB single-game articles in the near future, too. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say all six of these are worthy of an AfD nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I commented above on Indiana - Kentucky. As for the others, I am content to rely on the views of editors who are closer to the teams and the series. JohnInDC (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi State - Southern Miss[edit]

There isn't an article for it right now, but should it have one? This was a pretty intense rivalry in the 1970s and 1980s, but went dormant for about 20 years and was just restarted last night. Jhn31 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Leaning No Unless they plan to meet on a regular basis and if this has been getting extensive coverage outside of the two campuses, then no.--Daytona 500 17:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A quick Google search reveals a small handful of items from their recent meeting (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). It would probably come down to the coverage of the series as a rivalry back in the 70's and 80's, which, given the time frame, would probably involve going back and searching through old newspaper archives from that time period. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

College Football Portal[edit]

Hey gang, we need to make an effort in the next few days to update the College Football Portal. It should really just take a few articles and some fresh images. Who's game? Let's collaborate over at Portal talk:College football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Coaching records & indicia for the BCS/playoffs[edit]

The current version of the Template:CFB Yearly Record End/footnotes contains a mark (†) denoting an appearance in a BCS, Bowl Alliance, or Bowl Coalition game. I've never understood exactly why this was necessary, but also never previously seen a need to do away with it. But now that the BCS is done and the College Football Playoff ("CFP") is here – and apparently will be through at least 2025 – this footnote should be updated.

I'm posing a question here before I do anything, since it could affect many coaches' pages. Should we ADD the CFP to the list of bowls that are marked by the "†"? Should we have a new and different mark for CFP, and KEEP the "†" for historic appearances in the BCS, etc.? Or should we DELETE all designations for BCS bowls and just mark appearances in the CFP with a "†" going forward? I think the last is the best option, but welcome all thoughts. Thanks. --Kgwo1972 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, can we discuss a similar option for FCS, Div II, Div III, and NAIA playoffs?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Paul, not sure what you mean by "similar option" for the lower divisions. Is there any ambiguity there worthy of special notation? Teams either played in the national championship tourney or they didn't. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, sometimes the other divisions have bowl games (such as the Victory Bowl) and sometimes they have playoffs. Look at Mike Gardner. In 2013, his team won their first-round matchup in the playoffs and lost in the quarterfinals. But all we can display is "L NAIA Quarterfinal" which looks like the record was 0-1 in post-season that year, but it's really 1-1. Other things to consider are national championship games for the other divisions that clearly are not "BCS" or whatever they call it now, but are still national championship games. Maybe some kind on indicator for each division? Just thinking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

VIRUS WARNING! College Football Data Warehouse[edit]

I tried going to the College Football Data Warehouse site just now, and my anti-virus software blocked access with this message: "The requested URL cannot be provided. The requested object at the URL: Detected: object is infected by HEUR:Trojan.Script.Generic." If anyone has had a similar experience or knows what this means, please share. This is a site frequently used by members of this project, and folks should be aware of this potential issue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the site's been hacked. I'm not sure what else to make of it though! JohnInDC (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably best to avoid it for the time being. That's unfortunate. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I tried to google search it a couple of days ago and it didn't appear. I had to go through Wikipedia links to get to it. I don't know if this is related to this.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I emailed David DeLassus, who runs the College Football Data Warehouse. He's aware of the problem with the site and is working on having it cleaned up. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Appalachian State starting QBs[edit]

i've just created a Template:Appalachian State Mountaineers quarterback navbox but can't find a website that lists every QB who has started for App State, hence why there are many gaps in time in this template. Could anyone help me find such a source? Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't such a template presume that every App. St. quarterback is notable? I know we have permitted such templates for FBS teams. Is there precedent for this at the FCS level? Is it desirable? I would probably be inclined to draw the line at FBS. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Not taking a side here, but Appalachian State is now an FBS team. Jhn31 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Didn't realize they had graduated. Still, it's worth having a discussion about the quarterback templates. Cbl62 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Personally, Cbl, I think it was a huge mistake to sanction CFB starting QB navboxes in the first place. Here are three typical QB navboxes for Division I FBS teams:

And it's not like most of these QB navboxes are missing a handful, or some relatively reasonable percentage of 10-15%. Nope, they're missing anywhere from 30 to 70% -- and mind you, I intentionally selected teams that were not perennial cellar dwellers. Moreover, many of the Division I FBS QB navboxes are selectively omitting/including examples from their history to avoid listing the entire succession of starting QBs, which would increase the percentage of red links. We have created 100+ messes in order to justify keeping a handful of the QB navboxes for which the succession is actually complete. Why should we be surprised when some fan of Appalachian State does the same thing? The simple solution is to start converting these navboxes to "list of" articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with draining bathwater where appropriate, but not the baby. Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In 2000 years these navboxes will fill the whole page lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
So, you're okay with navboxes where half or more of the listed names are permanent red links? I can only imagine what our old friends at TfD would think of that. Why not start converting these navboxes to lists? And WikiOriginal is right: college QB successions are messier than most of us remember, and for every Dan Marino who started 20+ consecutive games, there are five or six Joe Sixpacks who started in one to five games, and are utterly non-notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, I didn't choose a side but could you imagine how big Wikipedia would be if it stays around forever. The billionth article lol WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
WO, clearly many of our current navboxes that are based on annual succession will become impractically large at some point. Some of these QB navboxes are already on the edge, and should subdivided by eras. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The same would have to be done with NFL as well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting points. As WP:NCOLLATH points out, not everyone who's played college sports is notable. Navboxes should be limited to notable people/concepts. So could navboxes be limited to "notable" starting QBs? Are lists of starting quarterbacks acceptable? Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
As noted at Template talk:Michigan Wolverines quarterback navbox, the Michigan navbox is limited to QBs with at least 6 starts. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Which means that the list is selective and incomplete, Cbl, and you are not presenting the complete succession of Wolverines starting QBs, which has been an issue raised at TfD in the past. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you really believe that a backup who started one or two games should be included in a template of a team's historic starting quarterbacks? Really?? Seriously??? Are you actually saying that with a straight face???? Cbl62 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am saying exactly that, because that's what the word "starting" means. Moreover, the starting succession is rarely that clean and crisp. A designated first-string starter may get injured, a designated starter may have a falling out with the coach, a designated starter may be replaced by a more talented underclassman, a designated may just perform poorly towards the end of a season and the coach wants to give the up-and-comer game time. Omitting actual starters from a starting QB is imposing an unstated rule of selection. Why six games? Why not four games? Why not six consecutive vs. six total games? Where is this selection rule stated on the navbox? Do you not see a probem with this? It's a bit It's exactly like saying "We Wikipedia editors have decided these starting QBs don't count." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What I see as a problem is including redlinks to a "college" football players who have started 1 or 2 games and are therefore almost certainly not notable. Why six? Because it seemed reasonable to assume that QBs with fewer than six starts would probably not pass WP:GNG. There's no precise science to "six," and I'm open to other ideas, but redlinks to one or two-game college players are a bad idea. Cbl62 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My larger point, Cbl, is that these QB successions work far better as "list of" articles, without having to sacrifice accuracy and/or completeness, than they do as navboxes. Might be a good example of where you put "List of Michigan Wolverines starting quarterbacks" in the "see also" section of every Michigan QB article, rather than having an inaccurate/incomplete navbox at the bottom of every page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of these templates have names no linked. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please clarify, WO-9: do you mean you have reviewed several that have ZERO names linked? If so, please identify those navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just meant that there are some with no red links - only blue and unlinked names. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Arbor, here are the two basic Wiki-rules/guidelines in play: (1) navboxes are for navigating among existing articles, and should not include a large number or large percentage of permanent red links -- articles that will never be written for non-notable subjects; and (2) the class of starting quarterbacks of a given Division I team, as a group, are almost certainly notable per WP:NLIST, even if they are not individually notable per WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. Which means, in short, a "list of staring quarterbacks for [Insert Division I FBS team here]" will almost certainly survive, even if a relatively high percentage of the individual listed are not individually notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To my mind, a list is an inferior tool for navigating among a related group. The analysis is the same for head coaches. Relying on a "see also" link to a list of coaches or quarterbacks would require multiple page jumps and is unwieldy. A navbox allows immediate access to all entries within the related group. Of the navigational options I'm aware of, a navbox is the best, succession box a distant second, and lists an even more distant third. (In the case of head coaches, we use both lists and navboxes. This makes sense as they serve different purposes.) That said, I do understand Dirtlawyer's point that navboxes with a high percentage of redlinks could be vulnerable to attack. They really ought not be created unless there's a good faith and reasonable belief that the vast majority of entries are notable enough to support a stand-alone article. For some programs (e.g., Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Texas, LSU, etc.), such a belief is reasonable. For other programs (e.g., Appalachian State, University of Akron, etc.), probably not. That may seem unfair to fans of smaller programs, but it's the foundation of how WP:GNG operates (i.e., quarterbacks for the Crimson Tide are more likely to receive significan media coverage than quarterbacks for the Akron Zips). Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Next group project?[edit]

Part II of the Consensus All-American campaign is nearing completion. As a result, we will have articles on every consensus All-American in college football history. There are loads of additional areas where our coverage is in pretty sore shape. With college football season upon us and drawing eyes to this board, we could work on another group campaign to improve the project's core coverage. A topic that occurs to me is College Football Hall of Famers. Years ago, Patken created two or three-line stubs for all or almost all of the inductees. Many of them remain in really poor condition, consisting of just a couple lines of text and no citations. A sampling of those (from A-BG) are set forth below. If people would be willing to work on improving these, I could compile a fuller list. Other thoughts on group projects welcome as well. Cbl62 (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Joe Alexander (Syracuse), Bob Anderson (Army), Volney Ashford (Missouri Valley), Reds Bagnell (Penn), Bill Banker (Tulane), Vince Banonis (Detroit), Ron Beagle (Navy), Hub Bechtol (Texas Tech), Forrest Behm (Nebraska), Marty Below (Wisconsin), Jeff Bentrim (North Dakota St.), Tony Blazine (Ill. Wesleyan), Ed Bock (Iowa St.), Murry Bowden (Dartmouth), Charley Brewer (Harvard), George Brown (Navy/SD St.), Gordon Brown (Yale), Teel Bruner (Centre College), Bob Butler (Wisconsin), Dennis Byrd (NC St.), Brad Calip (East Central), Dave Campbell (Harvard), Jack Cannon (Notre Dame), Rod Cason (Angelo State), Joe Cichy (North Dakota State), Gary Cochran (Princeton), Dick Colman (Williams/Princeton), Bill Cooper (Muskingum), Brad Crawford (Franklin), Fred Crawford (Duke), Zygmont Czarobski (Notre Dame), John Dalton (Navy), Ave Daniell (Pitt), Tom Deery (Widener), Steve DeLong (Tennessee), Kevin Dent (Jackson St.), Herb Deromedi (Central Michigan), John DeWitt (Princeton), Joe Donchess (Pitt), Jess Dow (S. Conn. St.), Nick Drahos (Cornell), Dick Duden (Navy), Ed Dyas (Auburn), Ray Eichenlaub (Notre Dame), Steve Eisenhauer (Navy), Mike Favor (N. Dakota St.), Bill Fincher (Ga. Tech.), Bill Fischer (Notre Dame), Buck Flowers (Ga. Tech), Rod Franz (Cal), Kenny Gamble (Colgate), Edgar Garbisch (Washington & Jefferson), Forest Geyer (Oklahoma), Walter Gilbert (Auburn), Gene Goodreault (Boston College), W. C. Gorden (Jackson St.), Charlie Green (Wittenberg), William Grinnell (Tufts), Ralph Guglielmi (Notre Dame), Lester Lautenschlaeger, and Alex Moffat (Princeton).

  • I quote Cbl62 (-College football All-America campaign (1889-1969)-"let's see if our project can turn all the red links to blue links by the time the 2014 college football season comes to an end" - August 16 ,2014). lol WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)<
  • Yeah, how's that for coming in ahead of schedule? Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice work, fellas. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to start working through these. There are some important figures in the history of the game here. Feel free to adopt one or more for yourself. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dates on standings templates[edit]

This discussion floundered last year at the end of the season: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 13#Dates on standings templates. Let's try to revive it at the beginning of the season to see if there's a consensus one way or the other. I will copy and paste last year's comments into a gray box here (please place new comments below the gray box):

OCNative (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I have a question. Does the page Longest NCAA Division I football winning streaks include current streaks? If so North Dakota State Bison are currently on a 25 game win streak. Other FCS schools are on there can someone who knows how to edit please add them? Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NCAA Division I FBS season re-written[edit]

I rewrote {{Infobox NCAA Division I FBS season}} today, and it has a few major improvements:

  • Now built off {{Infobox}}; no more messing with tables. I took cues from {{Infobox sports season}} but maintained the structure from ours.
  • Split into sections (regular season, post season, national championship game)
  • Dedicated section for BCS/CFP championship games
  • Dedicated fields for #1 rankings on the AP and Coaches' Poll.

Now, here's where I require assistance. I personally think that referring to the BCS/CFP winner as the sole national championship is placing undue weight on the organizers of the BCS and College Football Playoff. As such, the infobox no longer refers to the BCS winner as a "champion", but as the winner of the designated championship game. Due to its importance and prominence, said game is still significant for the infobox, but to comply with neutral point of view, I added, as mentioned, the ability to list other post-season poll results as well. Now, in pre-BCS pages, the "champion" field is used to specify the AP winner. However, to make sure my changes were backwards compatible, I did not change that. On articles that list AP poll #1's under |champion=, could you help me and change those to |ap_poll= instead?

2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season serves as the showpiece for the full extent of the changes; you can use it as a guideline for how to tweak other season pages for this updated version.

Sincerely, ViperSnake151  Talk  22:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill Danenhauer?[edit]

On Template:Nebraska–Omaha Mavericks football coach navbox, the link for Bill Danenhauer redirects to Dave Sullivan (wrestler). Given that the UNO head coach's tenure was 1975–1977, there's no way Sullivan (b. 1963) would be that guy. Does anyone know if Bill Danenhauer is an erroneous redirect, or if it's the brother/son/whatever of the coach? The link needs to be disambiguated but I'm just not sure how they're related. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In the February 21, 1976, edition of the Lincoln Evening Journal, the results of the state wrestling tournament have both a Bill Danenhauer and a Dave Sullivan competing in the tournament. Not sure what that tells us, but it's an additional data point. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting coincidence, X96lee15. User:McPhail created the redirect page in question on July 27, 2013 (see diff), with notation "McPhail moved page Bill Danenhauer to Dave Sullivan (wrestler)," apparently as a result of a page move. User:McPhail has been active in the past week. A review of the edit history of the "Dave Sullivan (wrestler)" article reveals the state of the article before the page move (see diff). Wrestler Dave Sullivan's real name/birth name is William "Bill" Danenhauer, born December 1, 1963. What his connection is to a head football coach who was probably 30-40 years old in 1975 (at least 69-79 years old today) is a mystery. Perhaps User:McPhail can shed some light. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a different Bill Danenhauer. He was born in 1934, graduated from Emporia State in 1955, and played in the AFL in 1960, for the Broncos and Patriots; see: I've disambiguated the Nebraska–Omaha template. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like this is a father-son combo. Danenhauer, Jr., aka Dave Sullivan of pro wrestling, was the head football coach of the now defunct Dana College; see: Jweiss11 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the sleuthing all. This was a trickier than usual disambig case. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dirtlawyer1 - I don't know much about the life of Bill Danenhauer prior to his wrestling career, but this interview has some info - it claims "Dannenhauer and his brother Bob ... both played football at UNO under Sandy Buda. After a few years in the USFL, Bill returned and helped coach the Mavericks for a few years". That suggests to me that he is the son of the coach. McPhail (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pop Warner article title[edit]

Does anyone have a good reason why the Glenn Scobey Warner article should not be moved to Pop Warner per WP:COMMONNAME? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NICKNAME: "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their 'real' name." While Warner is known most commonly today as "Pop", the historical usage is not as clearcut. Warner did not become commonly known as "Pop" until approximately the early 1920s. He had been coaching since the 1890s and won considerable fame as "Glenn Scobey Warner" while coaching with Iowa State, Georgia, Cornell, Carlisle, and Pitt. He was in his 20s, 30s and 40s during his prime coaching years at those schools. Here are some examples of how the coverage evolved in different periods:
  • Warner referred to himself, even in later years, as "Glenn Scobey Warner" or "Glenn S. Warner" in his writings and appearances. See, e.g., this book, this book, and this book by Warner. (Point in favor of current naming.)
  • Interestingly, a usage dating back to 1904 here relates to Glenn's brother W.J. Warner who appears to have been the first of the Warner brothers to be known as "Pop." (NOTE: This source may have been in error as to which brother was known as "Pop". According to this source, Glenn was known as "Pop" as early as 1894, having been given the nickname by teammates because he was older than them.)
  • During the 1890, 1900s, and 1910s, "Glenn" appears to be the common name applied to Warner. See here, here, here. Sometimes also as "Glenn Scobey Warner." (Point in favor of common usage.)
  • By the late 1910s, I find early references to "Pop", but "Glenn" still appears to be the more common name in the press. See, e.g., this one referring to him as "Glenn" in the headline, but referring to him as "Pop" at one point in the body.
  • The earliest usage I can find of "Pop" as the dominant name for Glenn Warner isn't until the early 1920s when he was in his early 50s. See here and here. That was at a time when he had already been a coach for 28 years and had won 3 national championships at Pitt. He would later go on to coach a national champions at Stanford.
  • This article from 1934 refers to him both ways and suggests he was known to the adults as "Glenn Scobey Warner" and as "Pop" to "all you football minded boys and girls." Warner developed youth football (Pop Warner Little Scholars) in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
  • From the 1930s forward, the press appears to have most commonly referred to him as "Pop." Even in retirement, however, press coverage was split with some sources still using "Glenn Scobey." See here and here. (Point in favor of move.)
  • His AP and UP obits here and here both referred to him as "Pop" in the headline and as "Glenn Scobey (Pop) Warner" in the headline. (Point in favor of move.)
  • The College Football of Fame (one of the authoritative sources) refers to him in its member profile here as "Pop", not "Glenn." (Point in favor of move.)
On balance, I'd probably tip in favor of moving the article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

With football season in full swing, 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 before the first playoff this winter (or at least GA status), 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. Images, too, are needed.

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) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous information on conference pages[edit]

Maybe this isn't the optimal forum for this question, but I am wondering why conference pages include lists of which sports schools compete in other conferences. The fact that School 1 competes in Conference B in women's blernsball is completely irrelevant to an article about Conference A. The fact that many of those sports are non-NCAA sports makes it even more out of place. The proper place would be the article about the school or its athletic teams. Grsz 11 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)