Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Use of mouseover in tables

Is there a Wikipedia convention on the proper use of mouseover in tables? Is it generally accepted? Which of these two tables would be preferable?

Career

Rank	Player	Yards	Years
1	Don Smith	7,097	1983 1984 1985 1986
2	John Bond	6,901	1980 1981 1982 1983
3	Wayne Madkin	6,482	1998 1999 2000 2001
4	Dak Prescott	5,831	2012 2013 2014

Career

Rank	Player	Pass	Rush	Total	Years
1	Don Smith	5,229	1,868	7,097	1983 1984 1985 1986
2	John Bond	4,621	2,280	6,901	1980 1981 1982 1983
3	Wayne Madkin	6,336	146	6,482	1998 1999 2000 2001
4	Dak Prescott	4,159	1,672	5,831	2012 2013 2014

I definitely prefer the compactness of the first table, but I don't think the mouseover is always easily available on mobile devices? Is there an established Wikipedia preference on this? Jhn31 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jhn31, that's a great question. I've seen mouse-over used some in interesting and potentially promising ways elsewhere on college football articles, to explain won-loss records in prose and to clarify assistant/positional coaching abbreviations in infoboxes. I'm not aware, though, if there are guidelines or preferences for its use. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool trick! I would say go with the second for Wikipedia. It will have the broadest reach based on use and understanding. Mouse-overs don't work very well when people print out hard copies...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Go with the second one. I probably would never have even noticed that the info was there in the first one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yearly record templates

I'm in the process of completing List of NC State Wolfpack football seasons, however it appears that the page uses its own wikitable, as opposed to Template:CFB Yearly Record. Should I import the template into the page? It looks like there's quite a bit of inconsistency across all of the various CFB seasons pages.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prisencolinensinainciusol:, yes, indeed, about the inconsistency. It would be great if someone could take the lead on standardizing these lists. Does anyone have a preference among the existing forms? Jweiss11 (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would assume that the template version is designed to be better than the wikitable version since its newer, although personally I don't like how it's so narrow compared to the total width of the page. I'm willing to work on standardizing the lists, but I don't think I"m familiar enough with wikitext to go forward with anything major.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article discussion related to this project

The 2008 ACC Championship Game was a college football game between the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Boston College Eagles.

I've nominated 2008 ACC Championship Game for consideration as Today's Featured Article, see discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/2008 ACC Championship Game. — Cirt (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD: 2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game

2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:CFB Yearly Record End/footnotes

I'd like to discuss a recent change to Template:CFB Yearly Record End/footnotes, which renders the footnotes at the bottom of yearly record tables, most often seen on coach bio articles. @Kgwo1972: brought up the topic here in August, but we didn't have much of discussion. Only @Paulmcdonald: and I commented, and that was to discuss a side note, not the central topic, which is denotation of BCS, Bowl Alliance, or Bowl Coalition games in light of the move to the College Football Playoff (CFP). After a the lack of discussion/objection, Kgwo1972 moved ahead with his proposed edit to the template footnotes, adding notation for CFP and deleting all for the earlier systems, but I think some more input is needed here. It seems that if the BCS and its predecessors were worthy enough of special notation before, they are still historically worthy of such, even though a new system is now in place. Should we have one marker for all four systems? A different marker for each of the four. Just mark the current CFP system, as Kgwo1972 has proposed and executed? Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we get some comment here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: There needs to be continued notation of BCS Championship Game and other BCS bowl games: the BCS was the accepted method for recognizing an on-the-field CFB consensus champion for 16 seasons (1998–2013). While it had its share of controversy, the BCS was a significant step forward from the Bowl Alliance (1995–97) and Bowl Coalition (1992–94), in which the Pac-10 and Big Ten did not participate, and consistently achieved its goal: crowning an on-the-field championship team. Removing the notations is to ignore that history, and pretend that the new four-team college football playoff is somehow a perfect system while the BCS two-team championship was somehow illegitimate. Neither is true, and the BCS was clearly a radical step forward in replacing the pre-1992 championship "system" of multiple dueling polls. Bottom line: a notation for BCS Championship Games and BCS bowl games should be restored. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, just to clarify are you arguing to restore notation for all BCS games, not just the BCS Championship Games? What about Bowl Alliance and owl Coalition (1992–94)? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, JW, but I missed this earlier. In answer to your question, yes, I think Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance and BCS championship games and bowls should be notated in some form or fashion. The new 2015 College Football Playoff Championship Game is no more important or noteworthy than the 1998 BCS Championship Game, and the Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl have been part of these arrangements since 1992, with the Rose Bowl being added later. For all the hoopla about the CFP, there's more in common with the prior championship systems than not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

DL, no worries. Agreed on a marker for BC, BA, BCS, and CFP. Do we need four markers, one for each? Previously we had one marker for BC, BA, and BCS. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Jweiss11 for making me aware of this discussion. Last evening, I edited the footnotes to read "^†Indicates BCS bowl, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, or College Football Playoff (CFP) game." This seemed to be the simplest approach to this problem. BCS, BA, BC, and CFP are all major bowls and deserve such a notation. At this time, breaking these into separate groups with individual notations would, in my opinion, unnecessarily clutter the box. However, a discussion should continue on the best approach to pursue. -- NEMESIS63 | talk | 20:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First football game in each state

It would be nice to have a list like this.

Date	Home	Visitor	Location	Final score	Notes
November 6, 1869	Rutgers	New Jersey (now Princeton)	New Brunswick, New Jersey	6–4	Organized football was first played in the state of New Jersey. Considered the first American football game ever played.
May 30, 1879	Michigan	Racine College	Chicago, Illinois	1–0	Organized football first played in the state of Illinois. The Chicago Daily Tribune called it "the first rugby-football game to be played west of the Alleghenies."
April 9, 1880	Kentucky University	Centre	Stoll Field	13¾–0	Organized football was first played in the state of Kentucky when Kentucky University defeated Centre. The first game in the south.
November 13, 1887	Virginia	Pantops Academy	Virginia	0–0	Organized football was first played in the state of Virginia. Students at UVA were playing pickup games of the kicking-style of football as early as 1870, and some accounts even claim that some industrious ones organized a game against Washington and Lee College in 1871, just two years after Rutgers and Princeton's historic first game in 1869. But no record has been found of the score of this contest.
November 22, 1890	Baker	Kansas	Baldwin City, Kansas	22–9	Organized football was first played in the state of Kansas.
November 27, 1890	Vanderbilt	Nashville (Peabody)	Athletic Park	40–0	Organized football was first played in the state of Tennessee.
January 30, 1892	Georgia	Mercer	Herty Field	7–6	Organized football was first played in the state of Georgia. First college football game in the Deep South.
November 29, 1894	Oklahoma City Terrors	Oklahoma City High School	Oklahoma City, Oklahoma	24–0	Organized football was first played in the Oklahoma Territory.
November 29, 1894	Stetson	Forbes	Florida		Organized football was first played in the state of Florida. An intramural contest. The first intercollegiate game in Florida was on Nov. 22, 1901. Stetson beat Florida Agricultural College at Lake City, the forerunner of the University of Florida, 6-0, in a game played as part of the Jacksonville Fair.

Cake (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think this might be a useful list. There are those that would say it's all "oroginal research" because no one really has an article that provides such a list. I would not be one of those.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am open to the creation of a list article as described, provided each "first" game is properly cited to a reliable source, and with the caveat that an entry on this list does not necessarily qualify any given game for a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• ... and provided we sort out glitches like, the first game in Michigan being played in New York! JohnInDC (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:1899 Sewanee Tigers football navbox

Should this exist? Jrcla2 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is no, it should not exist. We do not do navboxes for conference championship teams. The creator, Mister Cake, has done some excellent work in Southern football topics, but this is an over-reach, and so is the navbox that lists pre-1933 SIAA and SoCon championship teams. There is no precedent for either navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

DL, agreed on all points. Mister Cake has done a lot of great work on Southern college football, particularly over the last few months, but a little too much work in a few places. I think this navbox needs to go as well: Template:Sewanee Tigers All-Time football navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The All-Time team can be easily sourced, and the Iron Men of Sewanee were one of the greatest collection of men put on a southern gridiron, but if neither by itself allows for inclusion, I can understand. Helps a lot when one has sources about the team to have a navbox to the players. Hope I haven't added too much trivia. Cake (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that is sourceable needs a navbox. Something like the Sewannee All-Time team deserves mention on Sewanee Tigers football and in the bio articles of its members, but does it need a navbox? Jweiss11 (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of American football players who died during their career

List of American football players who died during their career was created in the last day and then nominated for deletion. Please take a look and comment. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So thorough it's a bit bewildering yet no Richard Von Albade Gammon! Cake (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a very crappy list article, focused on recent NFL players who died in car accidents, shootings, and drug overdoses. Zero good research by the article creators, and they don't seem to have the background historical knowledge to focus on the spate of game-related deaths in the early 1900s that led to football moratoriums in several states, the intervention of President Teddy Roosevelt, the formation of the NCAA, and the adoption of safety equipment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper wording?

Mike Christie raised a question over at William Wurtenburg FAC about my wording of "national champions", and I am at a loss for how I should respond. When thinking about it, I probably use three different wordings interchangeably to say national champion, and I have no clue which way would probably by most proper. The three possible phrases would be:

1. The team was named national champions.
2. The team were named national champions.
3. The team was named the national champion.

I don't know if this is just my problem and there is an obvious answer to my question, but at the moment I'm stumped. The current phrase I'm using in the article is "the Yale team shut out every single one of its opponents and was named national champions". It seemed to work at first, but now it doesn't really sound right. Anyone know what I should do? Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 06:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In the case of this article, since we're talking about national championships that were awarded retroactively and do not necessarily reflect any sort of consensus, the best verbiage would be: "The team was later recognized as a national champion." Jweiss11 (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Conference champions and the Playoff

(Originally posted on the CFP talk page, but I meant to post it here.) Now that we don't have the BCS anymore: on the conference standings templates, I've set up the standings end template to render the standard †–Conference champion, at the bottom. I feel that this is the best way to represent this, as doing it as we did in the past with the BCS (†–BCS representative as champion) with the playoff would be awkward, because if the templates did say †–CFP representative as conference champion, then that could cause confusion if that conference champion is in a bowl that participates in the CFP system, but is not a semifinal bowl that year. For the teams that make it to the Top 4 after Championship Saturday, I set up the standings templates to show ^–College Football Playoff participant, and #–College Football Playoff champion if they were to win.

Much of this confusion could be averted if the playoff contained 8 teams with all 5 conference champions getting an automatic bid, but that's a topic for the Paul Finebaum show. Otherwise, are there any thoughts on this? Ben^Yes? 03:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Marshall–UCF football rivalry

Marshall–UCF football rivalry has been nominated for deletion. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry

Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry has been nominated for deletion. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

1996 UCLA at Tennessee football game

I have nominated 1996 UCLA at Tennessee football game for deletion. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Individual Season Articles

I recently took a crack at writing an individual season article (Marshall 1998)and I'd like to do some more, but I wanted to make sure I was following notability guidelines before I put the work in. Are seasons of FCS teams considered notable? The specific ones I'm thinking of are the Marshall seasons 1993-1995 (back when they were FCS), although I may go back further than 1993 if I have time and it's considered notable. Thanks! Chuy1530 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Chuy1530, thanks for creating the article for the 1998 Marshall team. We've pretty much established than any season for a college football team that now plays at the Division I level (FBS or FCS) is notable enough to warrant its own article. I wouldn't hesitate going ahead and creating articles for the 1993 though 1995 Marshall teams or any Marshall teams going back to the program's inception in 1895. I made a few edits to the 1998 Marshall article to improve the copy, fix a few factual errors, and improve formatting. Let me know if you have any questions about anything there. Thanks again, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I figured it was something like that but wanted to make sure. Also thanks for fixing up the 1998 article, I'll keep the fixes you made in mind when I make another one. Chuy1530 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

RM discussion potentially of interest

The requested move discussion here may be of interest to project members. Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Army national championship navboxes

Seem like candidates for creation. 1945 Army Cadets football team, College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, just a few links. Here's some 1945 guys Earl Blaik, Doc Blanchard, Glenn Davis (American football), Shorty McWilliams.WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I made one if anyone ever wonders. Template:1945 Army Cadets football navbox WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Division season titles

I have recently moved the 2012 and 2013 NAIA Championship pages to the conventional method of [division x or NAIA season] outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Style guide, and I thought that I should ask for input as to whether I should continue to move the other pages of this sort or cease and desist. I was also wondering about 73-77 Division I (currently branded as college football season) since when these articles were established, articles for Division II and III in these years have been created. I am also wondering about pre '73 article names (also as Year college football season) Note some categories are already named Year NCAA football season such as the Category for 1950 or the category titled 1906 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season. I have established in my previous questions on this page that I am a sucker for conformity and consistency so I know as a reader what to expect in articles. Any advice on possible course of action would be greatly appreciated.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words what I am suggesting I wonder if I could move some or all...

• I. Move the NAIA pages from Year NAIA Football National Championship to Year NAIA football season.
• II. Move 1973-77 season pages to say 1973 NCAA Division I football season.
• III. (Less concern to me) 1955 college football to 1955 NCAA University Division football season
• IV. 1930 college football season to 1930 NCAA football season

UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, this all seems like a reasonable proposal, particularly points I and II above. A couple notes there...On point I, if the NAIA Championship articles are going to repurposed and expanded to cover entire NAIA seasons, then the leads need to be rewritten accordingly. Also, the infoboxes need to changed to something along the lines of Template:Infobox NCAA Division I FBS season. The existing infoboxes summarizing the championship games could be pushed further down the page to a section covering the playoff tournament. On point II, when articles like 1973 college football season were first written, the intent was for them to cover all college football for 1973 with a focus on NCAA Division I. We do see sections there titled "Other champions", which briefly summarize the lower divisions. If we move 1973 college football season to 1973 NCAA Division I football season, those section should be eliminated. Perhaps, a see also section could provide links to pages for the 1973 lower division seasons, although the NCAA links are already present via Template:NCAA football season navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to season articles. At one point we were creating season articles for each conference in the NAIA. If we have abandonded that then I could be persuaded to agee. But bear in mind that there are conference season articles in existence, so to me it makes sense to have the championship separate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jweiss11 for formatting my bullets. In regards to the season articles for NAIA, I would compare that to many of the D2 and D3 articles in existence. A brief summary of the season with a national POY winner. Outline of conference champions, Conference standings (when created for that year) and the playoffs. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to participate on point 2, I have requested a move on Talk:1977 college football season#Requested MoveUCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury

Hello everyone. I don't edit college football articles much, so I am not that familiar with your notability criteria. I do edit hockey articles, and I am pretty sure this guy would fail ours. I am thinking of AFDing it, but, I don't want to waste anyone's time. Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't qualify under any special notability guidelines. His notability would need to be assessed under WP:GNG to determine whether he has been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, not simply routine coverage such as passing references in game coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he's mildly notable as a football player. He has been self-editing the page to describe his post-football career feats of science, nutrition, and male modeling for a while now, but I think the part about his football career is pretty well referenced now. FYI, the article did survive an AFD back in 2010. --Esprqii (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the more bizarre AfDs I've seen for a college football player. A lot of agenda pushing by and single-purpose IP editor who made unsubstantiated claims about Salisbury being a best-selling author (his book was actually self-published) and an elite male model (no sourcing). Cbl62 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten how crazy it was with all the sockpuppetry. Amazing to read it all through again. --Esprqii (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking for some consensus on "Head coaching record" section

So, Mackensen and myself have been discussing the "Head coaching record" section at Talk:Gary Andersen, and whether or not the 2015 Outback Bowl belongs in Andersen's head coaching record section. I'm hoping that some folks can help us come to a consensus. Thanks, —  dainomite   00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of Frank Solich's article lists the bowl appearance of the 2002 season at Nebraska without a W whereas Bo Pelini has the appearance for the 02 season. Ironically the bowl is absent from his page for this season.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mackensen's argument that, for example, Gary Andersen's head coaching record table should display a link (with no decision) to the 2015 Outback Bowl since, as he put it, "the team, under his supervision, qualified for that bowl game". In contrast, Lane Kiffin was gone from USC in 2013 long before the team was invited to the 2013 Las Vegas Bowl, so there's no reason to note that bowl game in his record. As for formatting notes about about such mid-season coaching changes and associated splitting of records between multiple coaches, I think Billy Kinard or Brian Kelly (American football coach) are good examples to work off of. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, see my recent edits on Bo Pelini. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Templete merger proposal

There is a proposal to merge Template:Infobox gridiron football person and Template:Infobox college football player. Please comment here. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• JW, I had "Infobox college football player" watch-listed because of past ill-considered merge proposals at TfD. I have posted a fairly lengthy "oppose" !vote and rationale for this proposed merge. In short, we do not need a one-size-fits-all infobox for American college football players and Canadian professional football players; what we need is a better, reworked infobox for current college football players, but one that is versatile enough to cover notable former college football players who never played professional football of any kind. I have explained this rationale at some length in the TfD discussion. Please reply here or on my talk page with your thoughts. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In the interest of a centralized discussion, please do it at the TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_14#Template:Infobox_college_football_player.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Folks, you need to understand what has been proposed by this TfD: two non-sports editors have proposed that we merge the existing imperfect infobox for college football players into the less-than-ideal infobox for Canadian football players. Time to speak up, unless you want non-sports editors dictating how CFB and NFL article graphics must appear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ernie Davis Award

I have nominated the recently created Template:Ernie Davis Award for deletion. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

All-America Selectors

Can we add the Athlon Sports and FoxSports.com All-America lists to the 2014 College Football All-America Team? Thanks, wscsuperfan — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 College Football Playoff

2014–15 College Football Playoff was created a few days ago. Do we really need this article given that we have 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games, 2015 College Football Championship Game, 2015 Rose Bowl, 2015 Sugar Bowl to cover this in more and less detail? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just redirect it to 2014–15_NCAA_football_bowl_games#Playoff_bracket, or 2014_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season#Bowl_games_and_the_College_Football_Playoff. Somewhere should summarize the playoff process at a high level without needing to go to each individual game article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect per Bagumba's suggestion. We don't need to cover the same information in mutliple articles: there are already separate articles for the two semifinal bowls and the championship game, as well as coverage in the 2014-15 NCAA football bowl games article. The newly created article is completely redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Redirected to 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

I keep an eye on Category:College football articles by quality and aim keep the number of unassessed articles as close to zero as possible. This number recently skyrocketed over 300 after some furious project banner tagging by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao of theretofore untagged college football articles. I've gotten this number down to the 230s, but I could use some help assessing the remainder. We also have another 300 or so articles covering the 2014 season that are rated Current or Future class. Some of these (largely team seasons that have ended) already need to be rated on a quality scale and all of them will need to be in a few weeks. Can we get some people to pitch in here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got some time off coming up over the holidays, so Ill try to throw sometime into hacking away some of the back log.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Dcheagle, awesome Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we referring to the ??? category, JW? If so, I will take a whack at them, too. I assume that most are Stubs and Starts, with a handful of Class C's and above. Have we done any sort of rough notability assessment on them yet? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the "???" or Category:Unassessed college football articles. Yes, they are likely Stubs and Starts mostly. Not sure that anyone has done a notability assessment of these. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The unassessed backlog is down to 137. Nice work. Let's keep going. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We're down to 97. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick question re All American template

How is information in this template updated? Someone at Ohio State Buckeyes keeps removing the (outdated-by-one) automatic figure from the info box and substituting the (correct) figure by hand - I see the point, but have been reverting it because it strikes me as more sensible to have all references to the figure point to a single source. Also, the correct figure isn't (as far as I know) yet reflected in any official NCAA material, which the template asks that editors adhere to - do we wait until February or March when the NCAA publishes the last year's stats? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I have updated the NCAA link in the template. FYI, for the last several years, the NCAA has simply placed the current year's records book in a different subcategory of the same web address. Note the "2012" year in the web address for the template; by substituting "2014" into the web address, it takes you directly to the 2014 PDF edition of the NCAA records book. As the editor who found the record book online in the first instance, I can tell you that it beats trying to find it with a Google search. Also, no one is compelled to use the templated reference form; I, for one, do not use it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd already found the 2014 link (thank goodness for consistent naming conventions), but I counted and determined that reflects the (I gather, out of date) figure of 78. I think OSU added one this year, which won't show up "officially" until some time in 2015 after the bowl season is over and the NCAA can start their presses. If the template usage is not important, then I guess we can just fix it by hand - but I still do wonder how one would go about updating it. Where does the template get "78"? JohnInDC (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

John, here's a couple of suggestions. Once a player in question has received a majority of first-team selections from the NCAA-recognized All-American selectors, he is a de facto consensus All-American and the sports media will start to mention him as a "consensus All-American." Given that the NCAA will not update its records book until some time in 2015, this leaves editors in quandry regarding verifying consensus All-American status with reliable sources. Until the NCAA releases the 2015 edition of its records book, however, there is nothing wrong with using ESPN or another reliable mainstream media outlet as your source for consensus status. For the template numbers, I suggest you use hidden text to note the source for any interim update, so those numbers can be reconciled when the 2015 records book is available. Hidden text can be a very useful tool for leaving a popcorn trail for other editors (and yourself) to follow and to correct any mistakes later.

Thank you for taking responsibility for this -- your initiative is appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hidden text is a good idea. I'll do that. Um, once I find a source that confirms what this new user has been arguing the correct figure is - Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, get the new user to tell you what his source is -- presumably, he's not making it up out of thin air. I know, I know . . . sometimes easier said than done. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ingle Martin total offense stats

Can someone who is either a Furman Paladins football fan or a CFB editor who is knowledgeable regarding Division I FCS records take a look at the Ingle Martin article? In particular, can you examine and attempt to verify the following statement:

"He also holds the top two season performances in College Football History with 7,084 yards in total offense in 2004 and 8,193 yards in 2005."

Can anyone reconcile these outlandish total offense numbers? They are so far off the charts as to be disbelieved, and they are, of course, unsourced. Even assuming high-end passing stats of 3,000 to 4,000 yards per season, no one runs for another 3,000 to 4,000 yards on top of that, even in FCS competition. (By comparison, Tim Tebow received the Heisman for throwing for 3,300 yards and running for another 900.) Is there some form of total offense statistic with which I am not familiar that could render these types of numbers? Anyone? Bueller? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Those numbers have to be wrong. Certainly if they were right they'd have warranted at least passing mention on the page that Furman maintains about Martin, here. Indeed the page claims healthy, but still far more modest accomplishments for him: "despite playing only two seasons, set new school records for passing yards (5,761),passing touchdowns (42),and total offense (6,277)". I removed these figures - and suggest that other assertions in the article be reviewed for potential inflation. Good eye, DL - JohnInDC (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

NCAA FCS records (as of 2007) beginning p 189 here. Not on the top of any of those lists either. JohnInDC (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The page was heavily vandalized by a (since blocked) IP a year ago. Not all of it got cleaned up. The above is one; I just fixed another. JohnInDC (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Bio articles of questionable notablity

I dug up a few bio articles with subjects of questionable notability: Aaron King (American football), Chris Koepplin, Mike Parker (American football). Please take a looks and see if these are worthy of expansion or should be taken to AfD. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Took a look at King. Seems to have gotten coverage for at least two events. 1) Leading up to 2007 draft as long snapper prospectYahooCBS Sports. 2) Arrest [1]. Unless there was more non-routine coverage of his career, I'd argue this is more two isolated events with no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here are 21 more weak articles that should be considered for AfD: Milton Colbert, Robbie Nallenweg, Robert Johnson (wide receiver), Jeremy Kimbrough, Javier Zuluaga, Harry Barlow, Jacob Maxwell, Avery Patterson, Robert Connors, Tom Greenlee, Willie Hill, Quron Pratt, Kevin Graf, Jake Dombrowski, Frank Pattee, Bob Bill, James Ferentz and Steven Dean Memorial Trophy; BCS statistics (merge to Bowl Championship Series), List of LSU Tigers football poll history (merge to LSU season articles), and List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history (merge to LSU season articles). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Another: Robert Paulele (recreated following PROD). JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Another: Dallas Walker. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bowl game articles w/out navboxes or cats

WP:CFB members, please note new editor User:Surrmon is starting to create historic bowl game article stubs without navboxes, categories, or references. Please keep an eye on this. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume you've already talked to the user about the situation? Go Phightins! 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that would be a logical first step; perhaps you could show him links to the appropriate templates ... Go Phightins! 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

IP just made literally hundreds of questionable edits

Special:Contributions/24.249.251.212 -- just has made a ton of edits, mostly changing ULL to UL when we abbreviate for Louisiana-Lafayette. The IP address geolocates to Lafayette, Louisiana, and may be official representation of the university, which based on my article writing for the 2014 New Orleans Bowl does appear to want to be known as simply the University of Louisiana. I considered rolling back all the contribs, but wanted to seek some consensus here first. Will ping a few active users: @Jweiss11: @Dirtlawyer1: @Cbl62: @Bob305: @Mudwater: @Bagumba: @JohnInDC:. Thanks in advance for all your input. Go Phightins! 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. We've been through this "branding" issue with Lousiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Western Kentucky and several others. At this point, I don't really give a flip what the WP:COMMONNAME is -- because it's subject to change. Has anyone thought about visiting the athletic department website or calling the sports information director and asking what they want to be called in third-party publications and media? COMMONNAME is eventually going to track whatever the official brand name is. That having been said, I did just visit the university and athletic department websites, and I see no major rebranding effort underway. The university continues to brand itself as "University of Louisiana at Lafayette," or "UL Lafayette" for short. The athletic department brands its teams "Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns." I see no official reference to either "UL" or "ULL." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise the U-L system, and the school itself, use "University of Louisiana-Lafayette" pretty consistently. If the convention in WP articles is to refer to the school as ULL, then changing it arbitrarily to UL - without any consensus or even discussion - seems entirely rollbackable to me - JohnInDC (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, the problem in this case is that, unlike similar cases that are more or less a matter of inter-Wiki politicking by fanboys for their preferred name, this one is a real-life mess that has spilled over into Wiki-land. First, some background info: in 1998, the nine-member University of Louisiana System agreed to let their two largest campuses remove the directional designations from their names. As part of the compromise, it was expressly agreed that no school would be the official flagship of the University of Louisiana, and both schools would be bound to use the city designations in their names (see here). And so, the University of Southwestern Louisiana became the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and Northeast Louisiana University became the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Over the last several years, Louisiana–Lafayette has basically just been ignoring said compromise and pasting "Louisiana" (without the "Lafayette" city designation) on jerseys, logos, ect. Never mind the fact that their sister school which is a member of the same conference believes that it has every much right (or not!) to claim de facto flagship status as they do. A quick look at the talk page reveals that numerous move requests have been put forward here, all ending with a decision to remain at Louisiana–Lafayette. As you can see, this situation is a total mess, and it's unlikely to get any better any time soon, unless someone higher up in Louisiana state government intervenes here. So, what do we do? At the very least, I think we can all agree that the "UL" designation should not be used here, as it is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the University of Louisville or the University of Louisiana - never mind which branch campus. And, while it probably doesn't fulfill the perfect desires for either school, the "Louisiana–Lafayette" and "Louisiana–Monroe" naming conventions are really probably the only way to present the information fairly while adhering to a NPOV here. As far as the practical aspects of this, IMHO, the edits in question identified by Go Phightins are bordering on the edge of flat-out vandalism and/or POV-pushing. As a matter of fact, I would have no problem permanently auto-protecting the entire Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns family of articles, as the abuse there has been both steadily-recurring and of long standing. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Weighing all of the factors, including the nice summary of the history by EJ, I think WP:CFB should lose the three-letter initialisms (ULL and ULM), and adopt the unambiguous Louisiana-Lafayette and Louisiana-Monroe for our short-form names to be used in article titles, infoboxes, navboxes and record tables. While I have encountered the "ULM" usage from time to time, I have never seen "ULL" anywhere other than Wikipedia. Moreover, beyond these two special cases, I also think we should also consider whether to continue using the three-letter Associated Press convention of referring to certain universities and their sports teams by their ambiguous initialisms (e.g., BYU, FSU, SMU, USC, WKU). We are already inconsistent in our Wikipedia usage, using USC for Southern California, but Florida State instead of FSU, for example. In many if not most instances, it is also unclear whether the initialism is, in fact, the WP:COMMONNAME. Given the choice of FSU Seminoles, or Florida State Seminoles, I would choose the latter for article titles, infoboxes, navboxes and record tables. Once the fuller, unambiguous name is stated, then the shortest form initialism can be introduced and used within article text as appropriate. We should not assume that our readers are (a) college sports fans who are familiar with these initialisms, or (b) know the AP conventions for sports writers. With regard to this particular controversy, however, "UL" properly only refers to the University of Louisiana System, and not any particular university within the system, and our Wikipedia usage should reflect that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I agree, but think we need some extreme short form for game summaries, as even writing Louisiana-Lafayette a bunch of times is cumbersome ... Go Phightins! 18:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm. How about U-La-La? JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice, John. Now, can you say that with a Justin Wilson Cajun accent? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Generally, WP should consistently use WP:COMMONNAME, even if the use of abbreviations across different schools in common sources is inconsistent. Readers being unfamiliar with sports naming conventions are addressed through redirects from alternative names to their common names. The actual name of the article does not need to be dumbed down. Proper context for non-sports fans unfamiliar with the common name, e.g. stating the name of the academic institution, should be provided in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba, I usually agree with WP:COMMONNAME outcomes. In the case of "ULL", however, there is a serious question whether that abbreviation actually represents majority usage -- now or ever. I don't think it does, but the university and athletic department have changed their branding so much over the last 15 years that any determination of the common name is, at best, a guess. As for "USC", is "USC" really more common than "Southern Cal"? Is Florida State more common than FSU? BYU more common than Brigham Young? Frankly, a lot of these three-letter abbreviations are the invention of the Associated Press for the convenience of their sports writers. I also think the recent ULL and WKU COMMONNAME controversies should provide cautionary guidance on point. I know, for instance, that WP:Universities does not strictly follow WP:COMMONNAME, and often uses something closer to official names for article titles. Bottom line: we are under no obligation to follow any guideline blindly, especially when it yields an outcome that is confusing for our readers. Here, neither UL or ULL are arguably proper abbreviations for the university or its sports programs. In fact, I can't figure out why WP:CFB started using "ULL" in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on Louisiana-Lafayette specifically. It was a response to what I interpreted as your proposal to generally not use abbreviations for school names. If your point was that a few instances need to be revisited, I can accept that there may be some discrepancies in individual cases. Otherwise, I still think we should generally use COMMONNAME. AP alone doesn't dictate COMMONAME, unless it's conventions are followed by the majority of sources. Regarding WP:Universities, names used in sports and academics can be totally different and acceptable in real life, let alone WP. University of California, Berkeley is more commonly called Berkeley or UC Berkeley in academics, but they only go by California or simply Cal in sports, even though there are 10 campuses in the University of California system. I'd hate to have readers looking to brush up on their college sports on Wikipedia to leave erroneously thinking their football team is the University of California, Berkeley Golden Bears, or Nebraska's is the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Cornhuskers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bags, I think we agree more than we don't: California Golden Bears and Nebraska Cornhuskers are the accepted common names for the university sports programs and also correspond to the universities' official branding. No conflict there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Todd Hoffner

I just created an article for Todd Hoffner, head coach of this year's Division II runners-up, Minnesota State–Mankato. He was involved in quite the scandal over the past couple years. I hadn't heard about this until doing the research now. I think we want to keep an eye on this article and make sure that everything's covered fairly. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TfD: inappropriate team navbox

I have nominated a non-championship team navbox for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 23#Template:LVPosseRoster. I know that several other inappropriate team navboxes have been created recently. Now might be a good time to nominate them all for TfD and do some house-keeping. If anyone has a list, you might name them below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DL, were have a slew of inaugural season roster navboxes out there, e.g. Category:National Football League inaugural season team roster navigational boxes. That's essentially what Template:LVPosseRoster is, since the franchise only existed for one season. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the expansion/inaugural season navboxes often have a high percentage of non-notable and marginally notable players. They work better as lists, just like most of the draft navboxes. WP:NFL has way too many crufty navboxes and a half dozen editors who do nothing but generate more of them -- like the L.A. Rams Special Teams Rookie of the Year Award. But that's not really WP:CFB's problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: Do any other CFL teams have inaugural season roster navboxes? If this is the only one that exists, that may clue us in right away as to what to do about it. Plus, CFL players are covered by WP:NGRIDIRON, right? So, presuming that all of these players actually played for the team during the season, they'd all meet the appropriate notability guideline. The fact that some of the articles haven't been written yet doesn't necessarily mean that they're non-notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The BC Lions do, Template:1954 BC Lions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Okina for Hawaii and accent for San Jose State

@Bsuorangecrush: and I have little edit war brewing about okinas for Hawaii and accents for San Jose State; see Template:2014 Mountain West Conference football standings. As you can see, the relevant articles (Hawaii Rainbow Warriors football, Hawaii Bowl, San Jose State Spartans football, and the like) are titled without these characters, and that's the way those entities are generally represented in third-party sources. These accents and okinas are unneeded ornamentation and do not need to be used when linking to these articles or referencing their subjects in other articles and templates. Bsuorangecrush has argued that we need to keep them because they've been there for a while. That they have been there for some time only attests to the fact that we have lived with this small mistake, not that we shouldn't fix it now where it persists. What do others think? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

San Jose State I don't care about. Hawaii though has been listed in schedule and standing tables for years as Hawaiʻi. If you look at both of the articles Jweiss11 lists, both don't have the okina, but both have it listed with the okina in the opening line of the article. As far as I'm concerned, the okina should be there because that is how it is officially spelled. I believe the article titles don't have them so they are easier for people to find when they search for them. So to me they should be there and the only reason I reverted Jweiss11 removal of them was that I did not want it to have it on some pages and not on others. If they were to be removed that would involve edits to every college football and college basketball teams page whom they have played for probably the last 5 years at least. That's a ton of editing. I don't see any need for it. Hawaiʻi, not Hawaii, seems to be the official spelling and I believe should stay listed as is. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We generally use WP:COMMONNAME. The proper forum to settle this would be at the general school sports articles, e.g. San Jose State Spartans, where an WP:RM could be initiated if there is to be a change in consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, can't we assume the current article titles carry the preexisting consensus? As for Hawaii and the okina, there's no okina used on the structural listings on ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/62/hawaii-warriors) and I doubt you'll find them anywhere else. Also, per Bsuorangecrush's comment above, the use of the okina is not dominant in the instances of the references to Hawaii across Wikipedia. I don't believe they appear on any of the bio articles for the Hawaii head football coaches. They are not there on many of the team season articles, such as 1998 Michigan Wolverines football team or 1994 Oregon Ducks football team. There's going to be some editing involved either way to make it consistent. I'd venture it will be far less work (if that really matters) to remove the existing okinas than to add them in all instances of "Hawaii". Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would want to list anything incorrectly. Isn't this suppose to be an encyclopedia? Shouldn't an encyclopedia have correct information? As far as I know Hawaiʻi is spelled with the okina. So to me that should be official. If you guys want to take the time to change them all then I guess I don't care but I feel it will be removing official correct info to change it to something spelled wrong. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, everybody usually thinks they are correct. When there is disagreement, WP operates on consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to be anymore "correct" than reliable third-party sources (like ESPN) are. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ESPN has never done anything wrong....only all the time. I've never thought the "ESPN does it" argument has ever really meant anything. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How about just about every other reliable third-party source, e.g. College Football Data Warehouse, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Yahoo, sports-reference. com, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post... Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How about the teams own uniforms? Okina is there. Shouldn't that matter? I'd think the school themselves would know how it should be written. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Third party trumps first party every time. Do you want to go around putting a "The" before every mention of "Ohio State University"? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, even the lead of Hawaii here on Wikipedia makes it clear that the use of the okina is a Hawaiian language variant, i.e. it's not English. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100% with Jweiss here. The English-language names for these two teams are "Hawaii" and "San Jose State" Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there is any reason to change it. However, since most of my edits are creations of season articles and updates, I just need to know how to list it in the future. For the last few seasons I have always put the okina, on hawaii's pages and their opponents. If that should not be there in the future then I won't put it. But I am not going to take the time to go back and remove all of them. Way to many other things to do before that. So just tell me how to do it in the future and I'll do it that way. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That fine. Everyone can pitch in cleaning it up. Just simply write "Hawaii" where you would have otherwise written it with the okina. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)