Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Kickers

Should say the article on placekicker or Category:American football placekickers make any effort to reconcile the fact that drop kicks and placekicks were distinct and in a certain era both deployed regularly? Bill Fincher and Red Weaver were great placekickers (though doing both would not surprise me). Buck Flowers or Jim Thorpe if you prefer were great drop kickers (though their kicking from placement too, again, would not surprise me).Cake (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Short answer: Yes. Drop kicks were historically important in the early years of the game. Arguably, we should be linking to drop kick, not placekicker for some of these folks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is difficult as the position "Kicker" and the act of kicking from placement have become synonymous. Maybe you are right and one should just link to drop kick in the cases where this a distinction. Surely at least one should be mentioned in the article of the other. Cake (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• The drop kick was one of the great features of the early game. Currently there are categories for "American football placekickers" and "American football punters," but not "American football drop kickers". Of course, "drop kicker" was not a designated position in the early days of the game as players played on offense, defense and special teams. Dropkicking was typically an added responsibility for one of the backfield players, usually fullbacks (e.g., Pat O'Dea) but also some halfbacks (James E. Duffy (American football)). Unclear to me whether it would be appropriate to create a new positional category for "American football drop kickers." So long as it was not used to replace a person's principal position (e.g., fullback, halfback), I think it would probably be fine. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• The shortest way of spelling out the issue is this: As is, kicker assumes placekicker, but historically that is folly. Still mulling over how to attack the problem. As for cbl's post specifically, perhaps at the top of the category for drop kickers one could note that kicker did not used to be a separate position. He is quite right about the split duties between fullback and halfback. For reasons I can guess but have never really seen outlined, usually the fullback could punt well (e. g. Clarence Herschberger, A. Clarence Jones) and the halfback could pass well (e. g. Jess Neely, Lew Hardage). I assume the reasons are similar for drop kicks being a fullback's thing. I defer to cbl and suppose since one has to snap it to the punter it was more often with backs. However, if I tried I could name a superfluous many who drop kicked and were not in the backfield (Truxton Hare might be most notable. Hek Wakefield for one I could ramble about.). Also, in general, the end and quarterback positions were smart players with many athletic duties, and so it's one place to stick a triple threat. I would argue the heady status is still pretty well evident in the allure of the quarterback position and the myriad duties of a tight end, but one should "up" the latter considerably in the days before wide outs. I assume kicking from placement gives better accuracy and a drop kick the better distance? Cake (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Scope: Non-bowl games?

Perhaps I missed it but I don't see any place under the scope of the project for games which were not bowls such as say 1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game or 1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game. Further, if these do fall under this project as I assume they do, might one provide me with guidelines beyond the GNG for rules of exclusion or inclusion of historical non-bowl games? Thanks. Cake (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Cake, we generally try to push regular season CFB games into the season articles for each team, unless the games are historically significant. There have been a number of AfD discussions in the last year wherein various WP:CFB and other editors have expressed their perspectives on point. When I get a few minutes, I will link to as many of those discussions as I can find. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• From scanning List of historically significant college football games I might define "historical significance" as:

• rule changes and other milestones (1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game; 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game; 1892 Wyoming Seminary vs. Mansfield State Normal football game)
• Intersectional clashes with national ramifications (1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game)
• Sectional clashes with national championship ramifications (some of Dartmouth's victories over Harvard maybe; or any big 4 clashes might be of significance as much as the bowls for some years, or 1905 Chicago vs. Michigan; &c).

• Conference play, regional upsets, etc. could be confined to team articles. Though these are just first impressions to hopefully be expunged or added to by those discussions. Thanks again Cake (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dissent not everyone agrees with the assessment to push game articles into season articles for the team. I personally believe it to be redundant to have two entries for one event (for example, 2014 Kansas State Wildcats football team and 2014 Iowa State Cyclones football team when we could have 2014 Kansas State vs. Iowa State football game). To me, having the data in two articles instead of one is clumsy and cumbersome at best; inconsistent at worst.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's say we agree for argument's sake, Paul. What do you propose to do with the several thousand team season articles that already exist? And how do you propose to organize the tens of thousands of single-game articles that will replace them? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

They could be edited over time by enthusiastic editors. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul, you're missing the point: there are something like 750+ Division I football games played every year (127 teams x 12 games per team / 2 ~ 762 games). The vast majority are not noteworthy for anything other than the opponents and the final score. Wikipedia does not need another 700+ CFB stub articles per year that effectively duplicate the data in the season records table of the team season articles. And I can tell you most of those 750+ stub articles are going to fail a WP:GNG and WP:EVENT analysis at AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul, your suggestion is, frankly, terrible. If it's redundancy that bothers you, are you suggesting that we should also do away with all the team season articles? The season really is the fundamental unit of coverage of a team's history. Every major team sport on Wikipedia seems to be covered that way. And definitive encyclopedias, both online and in print, are typically architected around the season. Ideally that 2014 Kansas State vs. Iowa State game ought to be covered a bit differently in each respective team's season article with appropriate emphasis and context for each case. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first terrible suggestion I ever made! I don't advocate that every game get an article, but I also don't support deletion of existing articles about games either. As for the season articles, there is more to a team's season than just the games so there is certainly more to write about. As for the comment that "Im missing the point" (I'm not), I am well aware that there are a bunch of games each year. I'm also well aware that most of those games will not get an article written about them not because they aren't notable but because there simply are not enough enthusiastic editors to do the work in the first place. The phrase "Wikipedia does not need another 700+ CFB stub articles per year" is particularly troublesome, because Wikipedia doesn't "need" anything. It's here because we want it here. (there's an essay in that someplace...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Mcdonald: There is always transclusion to avoid duplication. However, there might be more interest to tailor game writeups to focus on an individual team, which would make it difficult to share. At the very least, we could share box scores through transclusions, e.g. Template:2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup Final LTU vs USA, to save on work and maintenence.—Bagumba (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am unaware of a method to transclude part of an article into another--I only know how to transclude a full article into another. If we take that approach (and I'm not saying we shouldn't, it might work well), we will still have to write a game article to be translcuded into two season articles. Alternate methods? I'm game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is partial transclusion as well. 2014–15 Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball season#Pac-12 Tournament and 2015 NBA All-Star Game#Celebrity Game use two different methods to transclude a partial page. The downside that I have seen with partial transclusion, which requires some inline tags in an existing article, is that some people don't understand what it does and just delete it, or they don't know to add their text in between the start/end of a section. Perhaps that can be overcome with familiarity and widespread usage. Otherwise, create a separate article that will be wholly transcluded.—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest we follow WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia, these steps should be undertaken first before some new article is created." If a single-game article was warranted, the new article would presumably be way bigger than what is in the season article, and there would be little duplication. Per WP:SYNC, we can do a partial transclusion of the summary of the game article into the season article.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• That's usually the tact I take. However, it does not tell me whether or not, say, if there enough sources, to include the Alabama's upset over Penn in 1922, or any other intersectional which drastically changed the year's outlook. Cake (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's an inexact science for sure. I would say if there is WP:INDEPTH coverage, especially if it is referred to years later as opposed to just routine game coverage, it's a candidate for a separate article. Separate game articles should not be an excuse to add trivial stats or facts that are insignificant years later. One part of WP:GNG that is often overlooked is that it is "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Cake, it goes without saying that any single-game article is going to have to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, which basically means significant, non-routine coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources and with continuing coverage over time. I'm not familiar with 1922 Bama–Penn game, but, in addition to satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT here are a couple of rules-of-thumb questions I would ask:

(1) Is this game historically significant to the culture, lore, traditions and evolution of college football generally?

(2) Is it widely recognized as one of the most important games in the history of one or both of the the teams?

(3) Does the game represent a truly historic first -- e.g., first night game, first forward pass, etc.? (Not, e.g., the first night game at Michigan Stadium.)

(4) Is the game widely written about in sports literature?

I'm sure with a little alone time, you could come up with your own working list of questions, and perhaps we need to create our own WP:CFB standard for when individual regular season games merit an article, and when they should be incorporated into the team season articles. I've been thinking about a WP:CFB standard for rivalry articles for some time, but less so for regular season games. Last time I checked we have about 75 regular season game articles, and, in my opinion, about 10 to 15 of those suffer from RECENTISM; I'd say stand-alone articles for 75 to 100 games of historic significance would be about right (less than one per season). Perhaps we should compile a list of potential games that we think are worthy for stand-alone articles for WP:CFB discussion purposes (and future article creation). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A list of potential games should be interesting – maybe that could put the list of historically significant games to some use. As for the Bama-Penn game, Michigan v. Vanderbilt and Bama v. Penn were the two big intersectional clashes for the south that year. Bama beat one of the "big 4," with Heisman as coach of the ivy league institution, and were expected to lose by 3 touchdowns. Aside from Flash Covington of Centre, which would have been southern champs without the Auburn upset, who broke a drop kick record with 6 field goals in a game and was the composite All-Southern quarter, the other quarterbacks from the south to receive Camp's honorable mention were Kuhn of Vanderbilt and Bartlett of Alabama. Not a coincidence. As it's the season before Wallace Wade got to Bama it's probably their first nationally significant win, and showing the foundation he had. You might know that Florida's first win of any national import was when they ripped the Southern title from Alabama the next season. The Penn win was the biggest in Xen C. Scott's tenure, who got throat cancer in '22 and in '19 and '20 narrowly missed southern titles. By the way, Georgia and UNC play again next season in the 'chick fil a kick off game' for the first time in more than 40 years and that game has the first (i. e. legal or otherwise) forward pass in 1895. Cake (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've put up some non bowls I feel should be there including the Bama/Penn contest. Feel free to nominate for deletion if they are garbage. Cake (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think 1894 Chicago vs. Stanford football game might best illustrate that bowls are prominent as intersectional games and not vice versa. Cake (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lyman

The 1891 Nebraska Old Gold Knights football team was coached by T. U. (or T. W.) Lyman, apparently a graduate of Yale who also coached Iowa at the same time. Then, also, for Wisconsin just a few years later there is a T. U. (or T. W.) Lyman who was 4 years captain and quarterback, including the year coached by Parke H. Davis. Anybody who can parse the Lymans? Cake (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a connection but see also this former Yale player turned coach: John Lyman (American football). There was also a C. W. Lyman (Yale Class of 1882) who played football at Yale as a teammate of Walter Camp. Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if this helps but........This source (Ariel) states a Lyman played as well as coached for Grinnell then known as Iowa College (not the University of Iowa) in 1891. This source source states that a T. U. “Tule” Lyman played for both Grinnell (Iowa College) and Wisconsin and was on a team that beat Minnesota after 6 tries. Wisconsin first beat Minnesota in 1894. 09er (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help from all of you. I still haven't established the Yale connection if there is one: Theron Lyman. On the surface Joseph Lyman looks like a relative. Cake (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Try this link. Even with this, I am not positive that he went to Yale. 09er (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure "it is said" is annoying but I felt it should be added to the article with some caveat as I agree with your skepticism about it. Cake (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas vs. UT footbal stats page

It shows in the right text box that Arkansas leads the series, but it is Texas with 56 wins. Can someone please fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RM: Illibuck Trophy

Please see this. In the words of Huckleberry Finn, we've "been here before." Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

University at Buffalo Stadium

With the recent run of the Buffalo Bulls in the NCAA men's basketball tournament, there's been a somewhat visible and concerted effort by a group of editors to change Buffalo entries to have the "New York" branding, including many of the athletics articles (as seen above in a previous post). Anyone who can contribute at Talk:University at Buffalo Stadium#"University at Buffalo" (also see the edit history), it would be appreciated. Seems like a pretty simple case of WP:COMMONNAME to me, especially since the article for the university is University at Buffalo, but maybe other editors have a different perspective. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player

Overview

With 2015 NFL draft coming this Thursday, many articles will again be converting from using Template:Infobox college football player to Template:Infobox NFL player. Some editors have already prepped for this by adding commented out versions of the NFL template into existing articles. It's about as good of a time as any to see if we can reach a clear consensus on whether the two templates should remain separate or be merged. The most recent Tfd in December 2014 had no consensus, and the closer suggested that a venue outside of TfD might be more productive to discuss this.

I've made a first attempt to outline some major points from the last discussion regarding whether the college infobox is suitable to merge with the NFL infobox. Note the last TfD proposed a merger to Template:Infobox gridiron football person, but it was determined that Template:Infobox NFL player would be more appropriate, if any merge was to take place.

Some key points from the last TfD

Merge	Don't merge	Procedural oppose
Should not need to swap and repopulate templates when college player turns pro If one template can reasonably handle multiple variations of football players, it would be preferred over having multiple similar templates No need for similar football infoboxes to vary in visual layout	Mistrust by some sports editors of editors proposing merges of templates they do not use Need parameters for current and former college players that never become coaches or pro players Parameter names can be normalized across templates, making conversion easier without the need to merge Utility templates that support too many variations can become too clumsy to use College and pro templates should look distinct from each other	Template:Infobox college football player may be merge-able, but it would be with Template:Infobox NFL player, not Template:Infobox gridiron football person A merge strategy needs to be outlined beforehand outside of TfD Need to determine if it was a deliberate design to keep templates separate, and if there is still consensus to maintain the original rationale, if any

Parameter comparison between college and NFL infoboxes

Notes Basic common parameters name, image, image_size, alt, and caption not listed for simplicity. Similar parameters between templates are grouped together on the same row pos is position of parameter as listed in documention at Template:Infobox_college_football_player#Blank_template and Template:Infobox_NFL_player#Field_list, respectively. Listed for cross-reference purposes only. Template:Infobox college football player Template:Infobox NFL player Notes pos name pos name 1 school 1 current team 2 currentnumber 2 number 3 currentposition 3 position 4 class e.g. Freshman, sophomore, etc. 5 major Past discussion to remove 6 birth_date 4 birth_date 7 birth_place 5 birth_place 8 death_date 6 death_date 9 death_place 7 death_place 10 height_ft 8 height_ft 11 height_in 9 height_in 12 weight_lb 10 weight_lbs 13 highlights 35 highlights 14 highschool 11 highschool 15 pastschools 12 college 16 bowlgames Past discussion to remove 17 cbs External links to college stats sites 18 espn 19 yahoo 20 si 21 rivals 13 cis Canadian university 14 draftyear NFL draft info 15 draftround 16 draftpick 17 suppdraftyear NFL supplementary draft info 18 suppdraftround 19 cfldraftyear Canadian College Draft info 20 cfldraftround 21 cfldraftpick 22 afldraftyear American Football League draft info 23 afldraftround 24 afldraftpick 25 undraftedyear Undrafted year 26 expansiondraftyear Expansion draft info 27 expansiondraftround 28 expansiondraftpick 29 pastteams Teams as player 30 pastcoaching Teams as coache 31 pastexecutive Teams as executive 32 pastadmin Teams as administrator 33 status e.g. Active, Practice Squad, Suspended, Injured Reserve 34 cflstatus e.g. National, international 36 statleague League for displayed stats 37 statseason Season which stats are updated 38 statweek Week which stats are updated 39 statlabel1 key/value pairs of stats to display 40 statvalue1 41 statlabel2 42 statvalue2 43 statlabel3 44 statvalue3 45 statlabel4 46 statvalue4 47 statlabel5 48 statvalue5 49 statlabel6 50 statvalue6 51 nfl Links to NFL.com 52 nflnew 53 coachregrecord Coaching record 54 coachplayoffrecord 55 coachrecord 56 coachSB Super Bowl coaching record 57 coachAB ArenaBowl coaching record 58 coachchamps Championships as coach 59 pfr Link to external pro stats sites 60 pfrcoach 61 dbf 62 cfl 63 afl 64 HOF Link to Pro Football Hall of Fame site 65 CollegeHOF link to College Football Hall of Fame site 66 CFHOF link to Canadian Football Hall of Fame site

The college infobox has a few college-specific external link parameters (which might be reduced per WP:LINKFARM), and three other parameters—class, major, bowlgames—some of which have been discussed for deletion before. The NFL infobox has some parameters that are different, many of which are not applicable for college players (draft, coach, or executive related).—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Merge

Note: Branched from above discussion at #Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player by Dirtlawyer1's edit—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Some issues that need to be discussed are broken down below. Feel free to add more sections as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why Dirtlawyer1 chose to rename "Discussion" to "Possible Merge discussion"[1]. Seems less neutral, but whatever.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've refactored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dirtlawyer1

Issue 1: Would a merged template be usable

• No, the issue is not whether an all-in-one merged infobox would be "usable," but whether an all-in-one merged template for college and pro players will best serve the 2,000+ historical college football players -- including Heisman Trophy winners (e.g., Jay Berwanger), consensus All-Americans (e.g. Lee McClung), College Football Hall of Fame members (e.g. Carlos Alvarez), and other notable CFB award winners -- who never played a single down of professional football. Sure, we could use an all-in-one merged template, but that just makes the great CFB player of the past another adjunct to the NFL of the modern era. And for editors who think CFB is just some sort of minor league for the NFL, who don't seem to understand that CFB does have its own distinct traditions, history, character and fanbase separate and apart from the NFL, I'm sure that's just fine. As for those of us who believe that CFB is distinctly different from the NFL -- especially from a historical vantage point of the 2,000+ historical CFB players who are intended to use the redesigned Infobox college football player -- we don't want something that looks like another all-in-one generic infobox.

And that's really the point: not whether we could use an all-in-one merged template, but whether an all-in-one template is an ideal solution for 2,000+ historical CFB players. Hint: it's not. Let's use the ideal solution for historical CFB players that was designed for historical CFB players, not some so-so solution that results from using an all-in-one NFL/CFB infobox that subordinates great CFB players of the past to the NFL of the present.

Merging these templates creates problems for historical college football players who are forced to use an inappropriate professional sports template, with inappropriate professional sports parameters -- that despite the best of intentions of template "mergists" like Bagumba -- are easily imported into a college player template "wrap." For historical college football players -- including Heisman trophy winners, consensus All-Americans, Hall of Fame members, and other college players of note -- the emphasis should be on their college career information, not pro-based parameters like NFL and AFL draft rounds, draft picks, NFL roster status, NFL profile links, etc. The idea was and remains to intentionally exclude pro-based parameters for players who never played professional football: historical CFB players deserve to have their college career accomplishments emphasized, not muddied with pro draft information, etc., for pro football careers that never happened. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue 2: Should college and pro templates consciously be made visually distinct

• Yes, they are visually distinctive, and we should preserve that visual distinctiveness of Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player. A great deal of blood has been spilled to preserve the visual distinctiveness of Template:Infobox college football player, as was intended when the creators of these two templates designed them in 2007. Bagumba already knows this. The redesigned Infobox college football player is now one of the best designed and most graphically distinctive athlete infoboxes now available. It is unfortunate that Bagumba has chosen to initiate this merge discussion rather than giving WP:CFB the opportunity to fully implement the newly redesigned Infobox college football player for the approximately 2,000 historical CFB players that should be using it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue 3: Is a merge needed, or is normalizing common names sufficient

• No, a merge is not needed. Yes, the 18 parameters common to both infoboxes should have common parameter names to facilitate the easy conversion from Infobox college football player to Infobox NFL player for those current CFB players who are drafted and actually play in the NFL or other professional league. Articles for notable CFB players who never play in the NFL, regardless of whether they are drafted or signed as free agents, should be re-converted to Infobox college football player if and when it becomes apparent they will never play in a regular season professional game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose proposed merger of Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player for the reasons stated above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• I would also have to vote Oppose. The NFL as the prominent means of football goes to 1970 or the late 60s and in the broadest sense the 20s with the likes of Red Grange, while college football goes to the very beginnings of the sport as far as we know. In certain years of overlap it might be relatively easy. But, trying to shoehorn, say, 19th century college football players into a layout designed for NFL players, even with similar parameters, seems quite the errand. Cake (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The layout of the two infoboxes is nearly identical, so this does not appear to be a strong argument. Alakzi (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually the appearance of the redesigned Infobox college football player -- with distinctive team colors, varsity stripes section headers and other graphics -- are significantly different from those of the present Infobox NFL player and its previous reincarnations. This was intended by the original 2007 creators of these two infoboxes, and I fought like the dickens to preserve that distinctiveness while we were going through the re-design process in January through March 2015. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I said layout; not style. I do not believe the proposal would entail the removal of the new header styling. Alakzi (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
        • It's identical if one leaves out or does not have information pertaining to the draft, stats, and so forth I suppose. And I would include 'style' in there too and say color. There also seems an accepted difference in how NFL players meet notability guidelines while CFB players have to have done something. It's also possible I am talking rubbish and have to defer to dirtlawyer and bagumba since Infobox NFL player definitely went through some changes during my time here. But I would emphasize that while the NFL might reign supreme in contemporary notability it doesn't get close in historical import qua football. I might emphasize "issue 1" and my opponents "issue 2." To digress, I see the NFL player infobox has a place for coaching which is confusing. Cake (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
          • The NFL coach and executive parameters (and about 60% of the other available optional pro-based parameters) of Infobox NFL player are intentionally excluded from Infobox college football player. By long established consensus, WP:CFB, WP:College basketball and WP:College baseball use a common infobox template for all coaches in all college sports (and not just college football, basketball and baseball). This forces a choice: whether to use the coach infobox -- which emphasizes coaching information, with limited player history -- or use the CFB player infobox -- which emphasizes player career history, with no coaching history. The choice in most cases is obvious. Excluding pro-based parameters is about simplicity of use and ease of maintenance: we don't want importation of inappropriate pro-based parameters into the infobox for a historical CFB player who never played pro ball. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Of course these two templates should be merged. Separate blank pro-forma may be provided for different use-cases. If necessary, a simple |current_college_player=yes parameter can be used to prevent the display of irrelevant fields. Claims like " that just makes the great CFB player of the past another adjunct to the NFL of the modern era" are pure FUD; a merged template will cater for all players. And we need not be bound by mistakes made in 2007. finally, why isn't this discussion at TfD? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course they should not be merged. As so often is the case, Andy, you view template mergers only from the perspective of what may be technically merged. Sadly, you don't have a clue what others are trying to accomplish, nor do you care. A majority of the editors who use these templates prefer that they be maintained separately, that they be visually distinct, and there is absolutely no policy or guideline that requires the merge. Moreover, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone by mergin these templates. None. Zero. That is more than enough to oppose their merger. Given the complete lack of any basis in policy or the guidelines, the only way such a merge can be accomplished is by the raw power of !votes. In the absence of policy or guidelines, it's an !vote, nothing more, nothing less. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • P.S. Regarding your proposed "|current_college_player=yes parameter," once again you display a lack of understanding as to what these templates are actually used for: 90 to 95 percent of the ultimate uses of Infobox college football player are not for current players, but historical players who never played professional football and never will play professional football. These are the great players of college football's past: Heisman Trophy winners, All-Americans, and members of the College Football Hall of Fame. This merge does nothing to enhance the presentation of those subjects to our readers. Nada. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • You appear to have !voted twice, Pleaase strike one. The benefits of merging such similar templates is - as you've been told before - explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Your attempt to expound on what I know and think, and consider, is bunkum. Please do not attempt to speak for me. Your final statement is false; not least because we haven't yet decided how the merge would be enacted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
        • No, Andy, I have not voted twice; please see my "oppose" !vote above. The benefits of "template consolidation," per your essay linked above, are outweighed by other intangibles in visually distinguishing two historically different flavors of college and professional football and implementing a uniform scheme of distinctive graphics across all American college sports. And, once again, there is nothing in policy or the guidelines that mandates this merge -- a fact that you conveniently ignore in citing your own essay as if it had authority to govern our decision here and elsewhere. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you want the two infoboxes to look different in more ways than the header graphics? Alakzi (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, Alakzi. As part of the planned common college sports graphics, we should retain all of the now-existing graphics of the revamped Infobox college football player, including the varsity stripe section headers, college team colors, the horizontal hairlines -- everything on which we spent three weeks working to preserve and enhance the template's visual distinctiveness from Infobox NFL player. Given (1) the desired visual difference in graphics, (2) the difference in excluded parameters, and (3) the need for different template documentation, one may reasonably ask exactly what the benefits in merging these templates might be? Too often "wraps" have been used as an intermediate step to merge templates later. And given Andy's vehement opposition to virtually every design element of the revamped Infobox college football player, there's not a lot of trust in the room on that score, either. This whole merge discussion looks exactly like what it is: the second bite of the apple to accomplish a merge and force a single template on editors who don't want it. Infobox NFL player is already too long, with too many optional parameters -- 60% of which are inappropriate for college football players -- and its documentation too long and cumbersome to be adapted cleanly for CFB use as a single set of instructions. Given the desired differences, there is no tangible benefit to our readers or the editors who use the templates to force the use of an all-in-one merged template. The fact that it's technically possible to merge them does not mean that it's a good idea to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
              • Apart from the header styling, why should the two templates differ in their appearance? What's the purpose of having a divider between rows on one but not the other? Alakzi (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                • Why? To visually distinguish college sports from professional football -- the same reason as the varsity stripe section headers and use of team colors. Apart from the desire of a handful of template editors to have a single infobox template for college and professional football, why should the infobox for college and professional football be identical in appearance? Please feel free to respond based on either Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                  • Apart from the desire of a handful of template editors ... I don't know if that's in reference to me, but I made no comment with regard to the merge proposal; I always try to hear people out before coming to a conclusion. So, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to silence me with seeking "policy or guideline" proof for what is - for the most part - a question of taste. Alakzi (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                    • It's not an attempt to silence you, Alakzi; you know me better than that. We generally work well together, and can be candid as required. My question regarding policy and guidelines regarding template consolidation, however, is a fair question to ask. Andy tries to dodge the lack of policy and guideline support by referring people to his essay on "template consolidation"; the best that can be said is that sometimes consolidation make sense, sometimes it does not. Here the goal is horizontal integration of template graphics across college sports, not vertical integration of college and pro piped within the single sport of football. And unlike most other college sports, college football has the critical mass in numbers of historical player biographies to justify a separate template that shares its graphics with other college sports, not with the NFL. As for the specific question -- regarding horizontal tool lines within the infobox -- the same question could be asked of the baseball infobox and others that employ similar graphics. Ironically, we probably need to adopt some other graphic refinements for Infobox NFL player, because its black-and-white version for retired players in its current form is pretty bland. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                  • @Dirtlawyer1: I would not have a problem with NFL players' infoboxes having the stripes that college football players have. Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't look at the layout of an infobox and automatically recognize that this is a college football player, this is a cricket player, this is baseball player, etc. The lead sentence of the article tells me that. If recognizing the domain is important, I would suggest adding a field that explicitly states the sport and level of competition in the infobox. Otherwise, the "infobox branding" is not accessible, and I do not believe those without access limitations can anyways discern the difference without reading the article or knowing something about the subject beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Your "no policy" comment is yet another straw man; no-one has claimed that there is such a policy. Equally, there is no policy requiring two separate templates be maintained; or that arbitrarily different subjects must have visually different styling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Andy, please learn how to correctly use the term "straw man"; otherwise you sound horribly foolish. My criticism of your position is very direct, and does not require me to mischaracterize your argument to pick it apart. Your argument in favor of your preferred outcome (i.e. merge) so far has amounted to nothing more than "see my linked essay." In a Wikipedia discussion environment, in the absence of reasons based on Wikipedia policy or applicable guidelines, the burden is clearly on the mover of change (i.e. you) to justify the non-policy, non-guideline reasons for your preferred outcome. You have yet to advance a single reason why you oppose a common graphics scheme for college football players and other college sports, nor have you posited a single concrete benefit for our readers or the editors who use these templates on a regular basis. So far, the score is Andy 0, status quo 1. You can't win if your don't score. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I've invited all participants at the last TfD to this followup discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge as Dirtlawyer1 has argued on all points, more or less. Also, I'm not sure why we're discussing merging anything with Infobox NFL player while the deprecated Template:Infobox pro football player is still out there with nearly 500 latent transclusions. Cleaning up that obvious mess will help simplify and clarify other discussions such as this one. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A clear consensus, whatever it is, is the desired outcome. The last TfD was no consensus. Something like "clean up XYZ first", as you are suggesting, would be a clearer path than what we had.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Template:Infobox pro football player is marked "... deprecated. Please use Template:Infobox NFL player", it looks like a pure mechanical replacement of templates, which shouldn't have any merge issues. It's presumably independent of any discussion here, but perhaps your point is you'd rather not multitask.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My point was about prioritizing the low-hanging fruit and fixing the little problems so we can better focus on bigger issues. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose To me, we don't gain all that much by merging the templates. College players are not considered automatically notable, and of those that are notable I would say that most go on to a professional career at some time. For those that do go pro, the pro player template works best. For those that do not they either 1-achieved their notability as a college player and need the college box to highlight those achievements (such as Liz Heaston), 2-have gone on to become a coach where the coaches box is more useful (such as Tom Osborne), or 3-completed some other notable achievement where another box outside college football is more practical (such as Ronald Reagan). Further, I find that attempting to create "SuperTemplate" leads to more problems that it solves.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Paulmcdonald: When WP:CFB members started discussing revisions to Infobox college football in January, one of the new items I wanted to incorporate was a life-after-college-sports career parameter, so that CFB players who went on to a noteworthy non-sports professional career after college could have that noted in the infobox. Thanks to "embed" coding added by Frietjes, we now have the option of wrapping Infobox college football player with Infobox person on top, so that we can add several lifetime parameters if noteworthy. For the two existing examples of how the embed function might be used, see Mark Harmon and Kirk Herbstreit. At some point, we will need to discuss how to use this option judiciously. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nice!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oh that is good. Especially into the past when college suggested significantly more – or perhaps entirely different, education and the whole team was doctors and lawyers and such like. John Edgerton was first to come to mind to benefit from this. Cake (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it's another option in our CFB tool kit. How we use it, and how often we use it, remains to be discussed after this "merge" discussion is over. That said, Edgerton does look like a pretty good candidate for it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Added it to some others which will hopefully help the discussion. I had forgotten Howdy Gray, who lacked an infobox since I was torn between person and CFB player. Cake (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose because I don't see a big issue with having different templates and after reading this discussion it seems clear that merging has quite a few potential issues. But I do think it is a good idea to make the parameter names consistent in both templates. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed merge. I'm a U. of Tennessee fan. I edit college basketball and UT Vols articles as well as other stuff I try to clean up when I see it. I don't often speak up in these discussions. I still consider myself somewhat of a newbie even though I've been around here for quite some time! But this one caught my attention because I was asked for my input in January, and I've followed the discussions since then. I'm completely on board with a unifying graphics and colors theme for college football players. From what I've seen of it so far, I endorse Dirt's plan for doing this, and I would really like to see what he proposes for that graphic design theme without the running interference from outside editors who only seem bent on derailing the effort with off-topic merge proposals, etc. Given that I favor a common graphics theme for all college sports, I oppose the proposed merge of the CFB and NFL player templates. "Golden age" CFB player articles have more in common with other college sports articles than they do with the modern NFL. Old-timers who played in the NFL should use the NFL player box; old-timers who only played college football rightfully should have an infobox that emphasizes college football and should be tied through colors and graphics to their respective universities and college sports generally. As a college sports fan and avid reader of college sports articles here, that just makes more sense. Regarding the new Template:Infobox college football player, I think the new version is a huge improvement over the old. I would like to see Dirt's proposal for an improved version of Template:Infobox NFL player. One other point: I am disappointed in the conduct of at least one sports editor who seems to have attempted to strip every college-specific data field and has opposed every effort to create visually distinctive graphics for Infobox college football player to further his own pro-merge agenda. As an alternative, Dirt sought out the input and opinions of his fellow college sports and NFL editors. I endorse his cooperative and democratic approach to this whole process.BillVol (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion, convenience break no. 1

• Comment. I appreciate Dirt's efforts in trying to create a visually appealing college football player infobox. That said, I do find the current array of infoboxes confusing. Ideally, there should be a single master infobox with flexible parameters that could be used for all (or nearly all) American and Canadian football players/coaches. I regularly work on football players from the 19th and 20th centuries, and when starting a new player article, it's not always clear whether I should be using:

(i) Template:Infobox college football player, which under current practice, as I understand it, is used if the subject gained his notoriety only from playing college football and without having coached a game, played a single professional game, or gone on to fame in another field,

(ii) Template:Infobox NFL player which, under current practice, is used even if the subject gained his principal fame from playing college football but went on to play even a single game for an NFL team (e.g., Tom Harmon, Lou Baldacci, Bob Timberlake),

(iii) Template:Infobox college coach which, under current practice, is used if the subject gained fame as a college football player but then went on to be a coach or assistant coach, even if only briefly (e.g., Germany Schulz),

(iv) Template:Infobox gridiron football person which, under current practice, is to be used if the subject played American college ball and then went on to play even a single game of Canadian football (e.g., Tom Pullen),

(v) Template:Infobox person which, under current practice, is to be used if the person played college football but then went on to greater fame in another field (e.g., Irving Kane Pond) or became an athletic director (e.g., Dave Brandon),

(vi) a hybrid embedded infobox which has recently been proposed for college football players who later became actors or something else (e.g., Mark Harmon), or

(vii) Template:Infobox athlete which, as I understand it, should be used if the person played college football but also excelled at track and field (e.g, Olympic medalists, Frederick Schule/John Garrels).

The current constellation of infoboxes makes it difficult, even for an experienced editor, to figure out which one to use. There really ought to be a way to come up with a single infobox with sufficiently flexible parameters that can be used for the vast majority of American and Canadian gridiron football players/coaches. It would certainly make life easier, and provide greater clarity, for content creators. Cbl62 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In case of Schule, my SOP would be convert the infobox there over to Infobox college coach, which I've done in many similar cases e.g. Archie Hahn. I understand your points about the confusion here, but if we unite all gridiron football people under one infobox then we have a new problem of disjointing college football coaches from other college sports coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You've forgotten {{Infobox NFL coach}}, whose merge with {{Infobox NFL player}} has been pending since November 2012. Alakzi (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, the Infobox NFL player/Infobox NFL coach merge is a tangent. Infobox NFL player already includes all of the necessary parameters for coaches, but the "merge" must be largely executed by hand edits because of incompatible formatting of data -- that often requires someone who actually knows the history of American pro football to get those edits right. We are also only talking about 332 total transclusions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it really need to be done by hand? I doubt that. The only reason I've been holding off doing the conversion is that I don't know which career format is preferable. Alakzi (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The formatting of coaching career information for Infobox NFL player needs to discussed and decided by the WP:NFL members. I had planned to have already put a set of options to WP:NFL for discussion and !voting, but other editors have had other plans since January. As you know, I am trying to turn my attention back to Infobox NFL player to address those concerns, too. I would like to present a coherent revamped Infobox NFL player to the WP:NFL members for discussion, rather than trying to have these discussions piecemeal. It would be nice to get it right the first time, rather than cutting and pasting and pretending that it's done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And then there also the deprecated Template:Infobox pro football player, which I mentioned above. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox pro football player was primarily used for AFL players who also played in the NFL. Because of the confusion between the AFL and NFL drafts, and other similar problems, care must be taken when converting these templates to Infobox NFL player. It also helps if you know some of the AFL/NFL history of the 1960s, so as not to confuse the datapoints. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Cbl62, I have spent a lot of time considering how to create a formula over the past five years that does justice to our great CFB players of the past, many of whom were student-athletes in the fullest sense of the term, with notable and/or noteworthy post-college careers outside sports. IMHO, there is no perfect "all-in-one" solution within a single template, and we should accept that. Infobox design is about making choices, i.e., choosing which parameters are included and which parameters are excluded. It's about emphasizing what is most important about the subject person. When we try to incorporate every datapoint about the subject in the infobox, we're no longer making choices about what is most important, we're simply duplicating the main body text of the article into bullet-point format. All-in-one "master" template solutions are a mess, with confusing multiple instruction sets, with too many optional parameter choices that do not apply to all uses, which inevitably leads to our novice editors invoking every available option, creating a fucking mess of an infobox that is too long, and cluttered with less-than-trivia datapoints. A simpler infobox is usually a better infbox. Again, good infobox design is about making choices. That said, choosing the right infobox is not nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Nor should it be. Most of those choices are pretty clear when we are talking about the CFB greats of the past. Given a little time, I will review the available options below --

(1) Infobox college football player is designed to be used for current college football players (usually 150 to 250 at any given time), but, more importantly, it is designed to be used for the 2,000+ historical college football players -- Heisman winners, All-Americans, CFHOF inductees and other players who are only/primarily notable as CFB players. It is designed to emphasize the college football careers of the great college football players of the past. I make no apologies for that, and I would think that would be among your principal concerns in this discussion.

(2) Infobox NFL player is properly designed to emphasize the pro career of current and former NFL players. It is a basic fact of life on Wikipedia that far more former CFB players are notable as a result of their pro careers than their CFB careers (roughly 3,000 purely CFB vs. 16,000 CFB/NFL). Per WP:NGRIDIRON, pro players basically get a notability "pass" as soon as they play in a single regular season game. As you and I have discussed many times in the past, it is not a rule I would have written, but that's the rule we inherited. On the other hand, CFB players -- other than major award winners -- effectively must satisfy the general notability guidelines, which is, ironically, a much tougher standard. Whether a single-game pro who was a truly notable CFB player -- say, a consensus All-American -- should use the CFB infobox or the NFL infobox is a matter for some thought. Personally, I believe squeezing a consensus All-American who had a brief one or two-game pro career into pro player box is a mistake. Even more so for NFL draftees/signees who never actually played in a regular season NFL game: these need to be reconverted to a CFB-based infobox which emphasizes their notable college career, not the trivia of a non-existent NFL career. And we already have the flexibility to make those choices.

(3) Infobox college coach is the uniform, standardized infobox template for all coaches, not just CFB coaches. I agree with that approach for two reasons: (a) Many, if not most, of our golden era CFB coaches were coaches for more than one college sport. In fact, before 1950, it was typical for the CFB coach to serve as college athletic director, and coach one or more other college sports. (b) I believe wholeheartedly in emphasizing the commonality of college sports. A great deal of effort has been expended to achieve the current level of uniformity in presentation and formatting of college coach information, effort I believe has been well spent. Infobox college coach is also designed to accommodate college athletic directors for the same reasons.

That said, your example of Germany Shulz is a good one regarding the making of choices. Schulz enjoyed a respectable 10-year career as a CFB assistant coach, and was briefly a head coach and an AD. Arguably, however, he is far, far more notable as a CFB player, including being inducted into the HOF as a player, and not as an assistant coach, coach or AD. Arguably, therefore, it would make more sense for Schulz's article to use Infobox college football player, and rely on the main body text to tell the story of his assistant coaching career, which is far less noteworthy than the CFB playing career for which he is primarily notable. If, however, you want to include both playing and assistant coaching careers in the infobox, then Infobox college coach remains the best choice -- and creating an all-in-one template is not going to solve any issues for Germany that aren't already solved by Infobox college coach.

(4) Infobox gridiron football person is the primary infobox template for CFL players, coaches and executives. Graphically, it is a primitive throwback whose design predates all other infobox templates under discussion here, and it has multiple inconsistent internal formatting issues. That said, the WP:CFL guys love it, are married to it, it incorporates many CFL-specific quirks, and it is not our place to tell the WP:CFL guys what to do with it. It works for them, and that's all I really need to know in order to leave it alone, as it is. If you want to engender permanent hostility between two or three WikiProjects that have long enjoyed cooperative relationships, then go ahead and try to force a merge of Infobox gridiron football person into an all-in-one "master" template, and learn to live with the seething anger of our Canadian friends. I, for one, believe in extending the same courtesy to their WikiProject's members as we would expect in return.

(5) Infobox person, Infobox officeholder, and numerous others . . . We must accept the fact that college football is not the be-all-end-all for many of our notable CFB players. Before the modern NFL era of the 1960s, many of our notable CFB players were just as likely to be notable for a non-sports career, and we have to recognize there is a hierarchy of importance in this world. Sure, Gerald Ford, Byron White, Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp were CFB players, but they were far more important to America as statesmen than as football players. Embedding CFB career history into their primary infobox -- Infobox officeholder -- would create another f---ing infobox mess. And adding a completely separate football player infobox is redundant and confusing to our readers, including duplicate birthdate, birthplace, etc. (see, e.g., Byron White and Jack Kemp). There are good ways to handle such situations, including relying primarily on main body text for their college careers and using a CFB stats table embedded in the CFB section of the text, as necessary.

Likewise, if a notable CFB player goes on to greater notoriety in the NFL (see, e.g., Emmitt Smith), the article infobox should properly emphasize their pro career, and we can address most of the subject's CFB career in the main body text and a CFB stats table embedded int the CFB section of the text. Trying to incorporate several dozen awards/highlights into the same infobox is folly, and a disservice to our readers. Again, good infobox design is about making choices, and emphasizing the most important elements of the subject life, not trying to list all of the elements of the subject's life.

(6) The "embed" option now available within Infobox college football player was not my idea or my handiwork. Frietjes insrted the coding in January 2015, and I believe that it has limited use for true "hybrids," to use your term. As I understand it, this is part of a larger effort to include "embed" coding for the benefit of Infobox person. I am skeptical of its widespread use, believing that it has the potential to exacerbate the problems of all-in-one infoboxes that incorporate far too many data points, and become far too long. How WP:CFB uses this "embed" option, or even if WP:CFB uses it all, is an open question that deserves to be discussed at length outside the present discussion. IMHO, it should never become the default setting in order to incorporate parameters such as family members, non-notable second careers, etc., that are tangential to the subject's primary notability as a CFB player. For someone like Mark Harmon or Kirk Herbstreit, it may have a valid use; on the other hand, for "hybrid" subjects like Harmon and Herbstriet, if a subject is more widely known for something other than CFB, then perhaps we should consider whether their CFB career is better handled with a combination of main body text and a CFB career stats table embedded within the CFB section of the main body text. Again, good infobox design is about making choices, not trying to cram everything into a single infobox.

(7) Infobox athlete is a "wrap" of Infobox sportsperson. Infobox sportsperson is a catch-all for many sports, and the infoboxes for biathletes, boxers (amateur), sailors, short track speed skaters, snowboarders, speed skaters, sport wrestlers, and swimmers utilize the template in the form of individualized "wraps." The template has multiple problems, and suffers from redundant parameters, unneeded and low-value options. For historic CFB players who are primarily notable for their CFB playing careers, there is no good reason to use it, including having played multiple college sports. The template is not designed to accommodate college team sports, and it lacks the necessary college-specific parameters to do so.

You mentioned the challenge of dealing with notable historic CFB players who were also Olympic medalists. For this, there is already a ready-made solution: Template:Medal, which is actually a family of related templates with which you may create a "medals table", without creating a full-blown infobox:

Olympic medal record
Men's track and field
Representing the United States
	1924 Paris	Discus throw

You may choose to place the medals table immediately under the articles infobox, or embed it in the related main body text. For Olympic sports, such as gymnastics, swimming, etc., those sport-specific templates have the ability to embed the medals table within the primary infobox. Because there is no international medals competition for American football, there is no reason to include the medals table embed function.

Bottom line: good infobox design is about making smart choices, i.e., which parameters to include and exclude in a given template, and then choosing the best template for a given subject. There are really only three choices for notable CFB players: Infobox college football player, Infobox college coach, and Infobox college NFL player. These three templates force editors to make those choices and to prioritize the most important information to be presented: CFB player, pro player or coach. In most instances, those choices are perfectly clear, and trying to cram every available datapoint into a single all-in-one infobox template leads to a messy, overly long infobox in practice, which does nothing particularly well. My guiding infobox design principle is that simpler is usually better, and tailor-made infobox templates are usually better than multi-use templates. I quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes (a.k.a. WP:IBX), which states:

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

That pretty much says it all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Perspective requested for consensus on players appearing on NCAA basketball championship templates

We are having a discussion about who to include or exclude from college basketball templates over at WP:CBB. It may be helpful to hear perspective from this project on how you all handle the situation where a player leaves the team mid-season, but was a key part of the team when there. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Rasheed Sulaimon on Template:2015 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball navbox?. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ordinals

I believe both ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) and cardinal (1, 2, 3, etc) numbers are preferred as numerals rather than spelled out (e. g. first-team All-American). However, it seems it has often been practice to spell it in some cases. Which is correct? Cake (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:NUMERAL, it's not that simple; it's about consistency. You should never start a sentence with numerals. Generally, you have the option of spelling out one and two-digit numbers, but we usually don't use a numeral for a one-digit number in isolation. On the other hand, ages are typically written in numerals; so are statistics. Three-digit and larger numbers, as well as decimals, are always written in numerals. We have spelled out "first-team" and "second-team" honors for consistency, partially because we shouldn't start a line of text with a numeral, even in an infobox. Confused? You betcha. But stick to spelling out first-team and second-team honors; that's how we've consistently formatted infobox honors for both college and NFL players, and a lot of effort has been expended over the years to achieve that level of consistency. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I somehow neglected to mention I just meant in the navbox. But ok, will keep spelling them out. Thanks for the tip. Cake (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

List of national championships by coach?

Do we have a list of national championship by head coach?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This article, College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, lists all of the MNC coaches after 1900, and some before. I believe that many of the teams did not have paid coaches before 1900. Of course, the concept of a pre-1936 "championship" is really an anachronism, because their was no such thing as a college football "championship" before the advent of the AP Poll, and all of those pre-1936 "championships" were awarded retroactively -- sometimes years after the fact -- by one of the CFB ratings services. But it is, what it is, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is not correct to say that all of the pre-1936 championships were awarded retroactively. For example, the Dickinson System began awarding national championships on a current basis starting in 1926. Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cbl, but the larger point stands. Dickinson awarded MNCs based on a mathematical/statistical formula for 10 years before the 1936 AP Poll; Dickinson also awarded retroactive championships for 1924 and 1925. Among others, Berry (1920–1989), Billingsley (1869–1969), Boand (1919–1929), CFRA (1918–1981), DeVold (1939–1940), Helms (1883–1940), Houlgate (1885–1926), NCF (1869–1979), Poling (1924–1934), Sagarin (1919–1977) and Williamson (1931) awarded retroactive championships (for the seasons shown) several years and even decades after the fact based on proprietary statistical analyses. Setting aside the idea of awarding a sports "championship" based on a statistical analysis/mathematical formula, exactly what statistics do you think were available for CFB teams in 1869 that could be analyzed in 1979? The fact that any CFB program/university would claim one of these retroactive championships is really quite bizarre. Texas A&M just recently discovered two "lost" national championships from 1919 and 1927, which were awarded decades after the fact by a couple of the CFB stats services. And Alabama added a couple more claims from the 1920s, among them retroactive MNCs from Billingsley and Helms. Sad to see historically great programs sink to such silliness. Some folks mocked the Bowl Alliance and BCS because they had the temerity to pick two top-rated teams to actually play for a championship, and as a result we now have the CFP. I give a tip of my hat to the great programs of the past, but claiming a newfound championship 85 or 90 years after the fact is a little wacky. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the "unclaimed national championships" as well. I don't see a day all that far off when we have a rouge Alabama fan editor that will try to say that Alabama won the 75 national championship, and edit all the pages associated with it, including Bear's when Oklahoma was the consensus pick.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I am late to the party [2]UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

At the time, Dickinson was considered reputable. With age, it has been the subject of much ridicule. Even before then, there were years where things fell into place and there was an obvious one or two champions, which is unsurprising given the BCS, etc, often banked on the same happening. With tradition to currently name a champion each year, there is an impetus for the historian to pick a champion in years in between. Perhaps the strongest example can involve Texas A&M. In 1917, Georgia Tech is national champ. In 1918, it's Pittsburgh or Michigan with nobody else even close, and Pitt beat Georgia Tech (Pitt was also undefeated in 1917 and declined to play Georgia Tech. However, and though Tech at home and Pitt on the road, they had a common opponent in Eastern school Penn. Pitt won 14 to 6. Tech ran all over Penn 41 to 0). For 1919, there are a handful of teams to make a case for. Of course, one could make a mythical trophy for '17 and 18 – but then it had to go to someone for '19. That said, the will to a total coverage with champions since 1869 with one game seasons and such like is a humorous part of the history, especially if one wishes to treat the subject quantitatively. It seems our expression of Spengler's Western man as Faust in this corner of history. Cake (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I will add that Texas A&M's claim is helped along by the defeat of Centre, though years later, in the 1922 Dixie Classic. Centre and A&M were two established, undefeated programs in 1919, though usually outside the regions of many established powers for one to argue their strength of schedule. In hindsight the defeat of Centre was more a shock than Centre's defeat of Harvard. Cake (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to interject here regarding 1918 and point out that many sources of the time named Navy as a close second to Pitt. Navy went 4-1 like Pitt, annihilated its four weaker opponents (average of 66-3) and only lost to one of the unbeaten so-called "military superteams" 7-6 in a game that was universally regarded as a fluke (Navy came within about a half-a-foot of a 13-0 shutout). If Navy wasn't the most vastly overlooked team in college football (a controversial remark, I know, but it really is true), it would probably be a slightly-lesser co-champion with Pitt. Which of course just goes to show, yet again, that mythical national championship picks are worth nil. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected (cannot forget Gloomy Gil). However I feel my post's point is not changed much, and would say it's hard for the south to get over Pitt over Tech 32 to 0. That seemed to pass the torch. 78 to 0 is Tech's average outside of the Pitt game. Cake (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. I don't disagree with your points at all. And just while I can, I'd like to point out that it was yet again Navy that had been beating many of the south's best teams since the late 1880s. Actually, the south's occasional successes against Navy would have helped out its standing if anyone in the east had actually considered Navy eastern, which no one really did. But I agree. Pitt's drubbing of Georgia Tech probably set the south back years in terms of getting respect (save Alabama, who has been vastly overrated by retroactive selectors, if they deserve to be called that). - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I know Georgetown, which seemed to vary in whether it was considered southern, had a series with Navy. The only southern victory which comes to mind is 1893 Virginia and that was tit-for-tat. Maybe I am biased but I would not neglect respect for, say, 1925 Alabama, though I know Alabama is one to claim a 2 loss season. Cake (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We Are Marshall teams

Would someone be willing to collaborate to make pages for the 1971 Marshall Thundering Herd football team. I would just create it outright, but given the sentimental importance of this team I would be remiss not to ask other editors their opinions/help/collaboration on this project.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help, though I have to confess that I haven't had much on-wiki time recently. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help, Bluejay. Happy to pitch in with some newspaper sourcing, etc., once you get a draft in progress with the basics in place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll pitch in. I'd write the backbone of the article but I'm not positive when I'll have time. Has anyone written the schedule and all that yet? Chuy1530 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have here[3] feel free to adjust it as you see fit.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more than detailed enough to go live right now. There's more that could be added for sure but I can't find the time to do it and publishing might get more eyes on the article. Chuy1530 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I submitted the article for review. I decided to do this rather than move it directly into article space because I didn't want to take credit for your contributions.UCO2009bluejay | Y'all want to talk? 22:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated. I've have been fine with a cut/paste move but I know they're frowned upon when multiple people have worked on an article. Hopefully it doesn't sit around in review too long; as far as season articles go it's pretty solid and has room to improve once we get more eyes on it.Chuy1530 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the article to the article space with a simple move. The edit history is there. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

2016 CFB season articles (?)

Can someone refresh my memory regarding our policy for creating future CFB season articles? May I assume this 2016 article, 2016 USC Trojans football team, has been created too soon? If so, I plan to send it to AfD per WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• It was my understanding that a 2016 article should not be created until the 2015 season is over. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've listed it for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 USC Trojans football team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see related discussion at WT:CBBALL

Please weight in on this discussion please. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Arizona Wildcats football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history

FYI this article was recently created. Seems like WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT might apply here. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it is mostly covered already in List of Arizona Wildcats football seasons. CFP ranking, which is not a final ranking, is not needed IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much a copy/paste of List of LSU Tigers football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history. We should get rid of both of these articles. The season lists can cover rankings. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Jweiss is right. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have AfD'd this article. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A question about importance assessment for recognized exceptional regular season games

I'm aware that WikiProject College Football has a chart to help assess importance of various kinds of pages, and generally speaking the chart makes sense. I've noticed however, that MisterCake assessed the 1971 OU-Nebraska game (for many years referred to as The Game of the Century, and the winner considered by many sources the best team ever to play the game) as low, as the chart suggests. However, this game determined the national championship of the 1971 season, the loser ending up ranked second, the team that lost to both #1 and #2 ranked third in the AP poll. IMHO, games listed in the article Game of the Century (college football) might be moved up a notch to mid. I've taken the liberty of changing this single incidence. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've recently done many importance assessments with many to go, and with many retreads to better fit the criteria or just plain misreading it. @Dirtlawyer1: suggested a talk in some weeks with, I hope, the intention to hash out the few problems such as these if I can hash out some of the larger problems. I have a handful or two of my own questions which I am keeping with me until then. Included with that consideration is the thought that further edits might change my mind. So, your question might get better consideration with the coming discussion rather than at the moment. However, since you brought it up, I will entertain the idea. Single game articles certainly get treated as "low." It seems one could consider it a sub article of the team-season (usually mid) which is a sub article of the team (usually high) which is a sub article of the national season (top). The exception is BCS bowl games (whether this means in the BCS era only or not I am not sure. Surely you don't want every Fiesta Bowl, but do want most every Rose Bowl.) and other bowls with a meeting of top ten teams (so I guess quite a few Cotton Bowls, for instance. Aside from say the contemporary football playoff championship game). No doubt this leaves questions. What of conference championship games? Are they not sub articles of the conference season (high) and therefore deserve a mid ranking? I am myself aware '71 Nebraska (1899 Sewanee says nanny boo-boo) is considered an all-time great team, perhaps the greatest, and '71 Oklahoma is not far behind, with that game determining the champion. It is hard to disagree with you. But, that said, other "game of the century" articles probably have similar stories, and there is a point to be made for the slippery slope. Say, if 71 Nebraska v. OU, why not 1905 Michigan v. Chicago, or 1921 Centre v. Harvard, or 1922 Princeton v. Chicago? And from there further perhaps, though I cannot say I'd mind if those were 'mid' and was as you say just following the chart as given. So I would on this issue, if it is an issue, mostly remain aloof and give credence to both sides and just hope to see that quality/importance table trend towards something better as many articles, as I found them, seemed to have their importance neglected. Most of all I think the chart needs more parenthetical examples. Cake (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MisterCake. I started to post the above to your personal talk page, but it occurred to me before I clicked save this might be a wider issue. I started my aborted post with "Thanks for your assessment work", so I never meant to discredit your efforts. As I said, generally the chart makes excellent sense. (BTW, 1972 USC Trojans also have a pretty good claim to that title.) The three examples you gave are legendary contests, well-covered many years after the event, all meeting WP:EVENT, and deserving of their own articles. My point is that run of the mill games don't normally deserve their own articles, and those regular season contests that do would normally not rank higher than low in importance. But if the most important bowl games are deserving of mid importance ranking by default, it could reasonably be argued that the most important game of an individual season such as 1971 OU-UN would be equally important, being the decider of the national championship for that season. I realize this may introduce an element of subjectivity into such rankings, but that's why I introduced the criteria of inclusion in the GotC article, which covers regular season contests of similar significance. I'd be interested in what others thought, even if they disagree with my position for one reason or other. BusterD (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I did not take it as somehow discrediting the work, just laying out where I am coming from. Or maybe would come from if it's discussed again later. My point was to say many could claim the title, so I could understand the reasoning of your opponents. "But if the most important bowl games are deserving of mid importance ranking by default, it could reasonably be argued that the most important game of an individual season such as 1971 OU-UN would be equally important, being the decider of the national championship for that season." I don't disagree. Were it up to me, one could have say 1922 Princeton v. Chicago as 'mid' (game of the year, unreservedly) with 1922 Michigan v. Vanderbilt and 1922 Alabama v. Penn as 'low' (big deals in the south, and nationally in that Michigan is national champs without that game). As far as all-time greats, for the era I cover most will take the 1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado/Yellow Jackets. Had Pitt played them before the war dismantled the team they would probably get pretty high rank even today. I usually see it as 1995 Nebraska vs. 1971 Nebraska, to your point. Cake (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Kicks aided by blizzard

Pardon me if this is only my own interest, but I wonder if it would be useful to have all the games with crazy wind conditions to make for long kicks to have a better record of the longest kicks without such aid. I know there is A. H. Douglas's kick, and Pat O'Dea's longest. Are there other such instances? Cake (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like kind of an amorphous subject for a discrete article, e.g. List of windy college football games? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Like any list, it would also need to meet WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking more along the lines of the proper commentary about certain inclement weather if I were ever to expand/perfect, say, Field_goal#College_football. Not suggesting its own separate treatment. Cake (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Importance assessments of team and team season articles

The subject of importance assessments for this project was raised a couple of posts above here. I want to bring up another question about the subject. The existing rubric for importance assessments can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Importance scale. The current version is largely the work of User:Cmadler from early 2012. User:MisterCake seems to be on a furious kick of implementing importance ratings on the talk pages of article—thanks for your work there, Cake. One thing about the existing assessment scheme that strikes me as odd is that national championship seasons (e.g. 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team) end up being rated as higher importance (Top) than the main article for the respective program (e.g. Michigan Wolverines football), which is rated as only High. I understand that national championship seasons should be considered more important than other seasons, but are those articles really higher priority than the main program articles? Something seems awry here. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

One solution might be to handle it like the given criteria for the stadia - top if the program has multiple national titles. Cake (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem. How about a program that has only one national title, like Syracuse? Should 1959 Syracuse Orangemen football team be of greater importance than Syracuse Orange football? Or how about program like Purdue with no national titles? Are these national championship season articles really of greater importance than Purdue Boilermakers football? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And let's be clear: whatever higher importance rating we may assign to a national championship season article, the championship needs to be a consensus championship, which means AP/Coaches champions, Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS champions, or College Football Playoff champions. We should not be rating season articles as "high" or "top" importance when the championship was that of a single selector retroactively awarding MNCs years after the fact. Let's try to keep it real, guys. The WP:CFB importance ratings should mean something: we should not have 250 "top" importance season articles when we're done with this exercise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS suggests that Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) and National Football Foundation (NFF) titles are on the same footing as the aforementioned per the he NCAA's designation as "Consensus National Champions". The national championship teams in question here, "consensus" without an #1 ranking either major poll, are as follows:

• 1958 Iowa Hawkeyes football team (claimed - 8–1–1, tied AFA, stomped by OSU at home)
• 1960 Ole Miss Rebels football team (claimed - 10–0–1, played weak schedule, not including top 3 SEC teams: UA, AU, UF)
• 1961 Ohio State Buckeyes football team (claimed - 8–0–1, no bowl game)
• 1964 Arkansas Razorbacks football team (claimed - 11–0, best case of the minority championships)
• 1964 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team (unclaimed - 9–1, no ranked opponents on game dates)
• 1970 Ohio State Buckeyes football team (claimed - 9–1, lost to 9–3 Stanford in bowl, minority NC in AP/Coach split year)

And what about before 1936? 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team isn't as important other national championship seasons? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

According to our Wikipedia article, "The 1901 college football season had no clear-cut champion, with the Official NCAA Division I Football Records Book listing Michigan, Yale, and Harvard as having been selected national champions. Harvard beat Yale 22–0 the last game of the year."

No, with two possible exception, the listed teams are not as important as the consensus national champions that were recognized in those same years. Not at all. Significant "minority" championships, such as those listed above, should be rated one importance level below what the consensus national champions are rated in each of those years:

• 1958 LSU Tigers football team (11–0, AP#1/Coaches#1, Paul Dietzel, Billy Cannon, one of the great CFB teams)
• 1960 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team (AP#1/Coaches#1, 8–2, lost bowl)
• 1961 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (11–0, AP#1/Coaches#1, undeniably one of the great CFB teams)
• 1964 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (10–1, AP#1/Coaches#1, lost bowl to Texas, who Arkansas beat)
• 1970 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team (11–0–1, AP#1/Coaches#3, tie was vs ranked USC in LA)
• 1970 Texas Longhorns football team (10–1, AP#3/Coaches#1, lost bowl to ND)

So, no, JW, '58 Iowa, '60 Ole Miss, '64 Notre Dame, and '70 Ohio State should not be rated at the same importance level as consensus champions '58 LSU and '61 Alabama, or even split-poll champion '70 Nebraska. The '60 Ohio State team has a case, '64 Arkansas team has a better case, especially given '64 Bama's bowl loss, and mutual opponent games against '64 Texas. But you've also selected close calls; most are not. The '58 Hawkeyes vs. '58 LSU Tigers, though? Seriously, not even close.

I don't care much about importance ratings, but it would be arbitrary and inappropriate for one or more editors to impose their subjective view that pre-1936 championships are less important than modern championships. Plain and simple. Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What pre-1936 championships would those be, Cbl? Do you mean the MNCs that were awarded by statisticians, years after the seasons were actually played? LOL@Pre-1936 MNCs. For the sake of historical faireness, let's treat the pre-1936 teams that received a majority of the statisticians' championships as consensus champions; I believe this is exactly what College Football Data Warehouse does. However, there should not be three or four team articles all rated "top" or "high" for the same season. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We can holler into the wee hours about who had the better team in 1958 or 1970 or whatever, but the point is we need some clear-cut, consistent, and objective way to treat national championships, even if "objective" really means deferring to the subjectivity of another body, like the NCAA, or College Football Data Warehouse, or whomever. College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS is the most comprehensive treatment of national titles that we have at our disposal, and it clearly implies, on the authority of the NCAA, that Iowa's '58 title is on the same footing at LSU's '58 title, no matter how stupid that might actually be. Whatever we ultimately determine to be a legit national title worthy of "Top" importance should probably have a one-to-one relationship with those legit national titles worthy of a navbox (see: Category:NCAA Division I FBS champions navigational boxes), and worthy of being noted in the infoboxes of season articles (e.g. 1958 college football season), and worthy of citation in bio infoboxes and head coaching record tables (e.g. Forest Evashevski). Jweiss11 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one could argue Syracuse's national championship season deserves more focus than Syracuse football; that 1984 BYU is bigger than BYU or Purdue. I must side with cbl on the national championships. The idea that pre 1936 championships were only claimed retroactively is false. Find anyone to dispute Yale in 1909 or Georgia Tech in 1917. I should also note, probably the greatest Bama team aside from 61 is '34 (Don Hutson and Bear Bryant at ends), and that title is disputed with Minnesota. Cake (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cake, by what rationale can one argue that Syracuse's 1959 title season deserves more focus than the whole of Syracuse football, 1889 to present? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• The same reasoning which would say it for BYU - the prominence of national championship seasons. The same rationale for having Harvard Stadium and 1890 Harvard above Harvard football, as the table necessitates. Syracuse deserves the focus of the 1959 season, but its program does not deserve the focus over many other teams. I think it's true that some team articles (like Harvard's, probably, given the historical significance) should get the bump, but not all. Cake (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've been largely absent from Wikipedia for a little while now, but I happened to notice this discussion and figured I'd jump in. My overriding motivation in creating that importance schema was simply that this was and is a large project, and I felt that it was -- ahem -- important...for us to assess importance. The perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good, and I thought (and still think) that it is more important to have and use a good schema than to strive for an ideal schema and risk ending up with nothing, or with an even worse mess. (Prior to this, it had been suggested that creators of or major contributors to articles could not assess them, and that the Big 8 Conference should be low-importance because it was defunct.) This Wikiproject includes nearly 50,000 pages, and there must be a way to signal to an uninformed editor or a bot that one article is more important than another. Keep in mind that in debating the relative importance of national championship team season articles vs team articles, we're arguing about where within the top 4.5% of articles these should rank.

With all that said, perhaps the solution is to say that teams with multiple national championships are by default one level higher than given (so an FBS team with multiple national championships would default to top-importance). And yes, I do think that Colorado's 1990 season, for example, is a more important topic to cover than Colorado football in general. I do think it's also reasonable for post-1949 championships to limit this to "consensus" national champions, as noted by Jweiss11.

Finally, keep in mind that these are the default, or "starting" importance levels, but right there directly beneath the importance assessment table, it clearly states that with consensus (on an article-by-article basis) any article can be adjusted up or down one level or importance. cmadler (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

† on coaching pages

According to the table the † symbol †Indicates Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Championship Series (BCS) bowl, or College Football Playoff (CFP) game. The † was on coaches pages who played in New Years six bowls until user:Akatheflake removed that because they were "New Year's Six game, not one of the three CFP games". The non Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS games that were not part of the National Championship are marked on coaches pages with † so why not New Years Six games? Should we change the table to say New Years Six instead of College Football Playoff? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the pickle because Baylor didn't play in a CFP game but it was under the CFP umbrella. However,"New Years Six" isn't the official title of the games, therefore I think it should have the CFP indicator even though it isn't in the "playoffs".–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought. As far as I'm concerned the New Year's Six bowls have as much importance as the Coalition, Alliance, and BCS games so they should be marked with the †. I would just like to come to a consensus before re-adding it to the coaches pages where it got removed. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify for everyone, what we're talking about here is the footer notation in Template:CFB Yearly Record End/footnotes, as primarily instantiated on head coaching record tables on bio articles. Bsuorangecrush, I agree, if we are are marking all Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS games that were not national title games, which we are, then we should also be marking the three College Football Playoff games that are not actually part of the championship tournament. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand what everyone is saying, but to me, College Football Playoff game implies that the two teams in that game made the designated four-team playoff and have a chance at the title. The BCS games that were not for the championship were still marketed as and universally considered BCS games because the BCS computers chose those teams and everyone referred to them as BCS games. While the playoff committee determines the "New Year's Six" participants, those games were never referred to by ESPN or any other outlet I saw as "Playoff Games".Akatheflake (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Akatheflake

I agree with that. That is why I asked if it would be better if we changed it from saying College Football Playoff (CFP) to saying New Year's Six. Agreed they do not consider other non semifinal games as part of the playoff, the New Year's Six is something they talk about as if it were the BCS. I would say those games need to be marked the way it's been done in the past.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What if we did this

|- | colspan="9" | ^†Indicates Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, BCS, or CFP/New Years' Six bowl.
^#Rankings from final Coaches Poll.

No reason to have it say Bowl Championship Series and BCS. No reason for it to say College Football Playoff and CFP. If anyone needs to know what the abbreviations mean then they can click the link. And New Years Six does not have its own page so linking it to the CFP is the best option. Anyone have a problem with changing the template to this?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. It should resolve the ambiguity. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this would be great.Akatheflake (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Russ Peterson (American football player) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Russ Peterson (American football player) to be moved to Russ Peterson (offensive lineman). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Jake Ryan (American football) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jake Ryan (American football) to be moved to Jake Ryan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Justin Brown (wide receiver) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Justin Brown (wide receiver) to be moved to Justin Brown. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

All-conference teams

We now have articles on every year's All-Big Ten Conference football team. See Template:All-Big Ten Conference football teams. If anyone wants to collaborate on similar articles for the Pac-12, let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• After doing the All-Southern teams, which is an era with which I will be more familiar (until we get into the modern era), I've started a few similar articles for the All-SEC teams. See Template:All-SEC football teams. Cake (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

UAB Reinstated?

I think we need some eyes on UAB articles. Bleacher Report reports UAB football to be reinstated [4].UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've updated most of them.....On a small note, anyone know how to end the seasons button on the 2014 UAB Blazers football team infobox (and be able to add a year later when they decide to field the next team? They are not fielding a team until at least 2016).....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Answered my own question...I'm leaving it blank for now until they figure out when they'll be able to field a team.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of CFB players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for former college football players: Dan Marino] and Tim Tebow. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

History of linebacker position

It seems quite a few editors are involved with Michigan Wolverines football. Could anyone help to connect the dots outlined in the history section of the Linebacker article. Much of the later body of the article does not have inline citations as well. Any help is appreciated. Cake (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Many claims to be the "first" in football to do this or that tend to be apocryphal. See, e.g. Forward pass#First legal pass. This is often due to the fact that many supposed "inventions" were actually the product of gradual evolution that can be partially credited to multiple persons with a definitive answer being elusive at best. That said, the historic claim of Germany Schulz as the first person to play the linebacker position, during a game in 1904, seems pretty well supported. There are many sources for this, including:

(1) The National Football Foundation, a neutral, reputable, and probably eminent source, recognizes Schulz as the first linebacker. His official biography at the College Football Hall of Fame states: "Before Schulz, centers always played in the line on defense. He dropped back, became a roving center and football's first linebacker." For his contributions to the game, Schulz was one of the inaugural inductees into the CFHOF in 1951. See here.

(2) In 1954, sports columnist Dave Lewis explored the history of the linebacker position, and concluded that Schulz was the "first of the breed". Lewis wrote: "Schulz revolutionized defensive line play being the first to back up the line". Dave Lewis, "Once Over Lightly," The Long Beach Independent, July 29, 1954.

(3) Schulz recalled that the first time he stepped back from the line on defense, Coach Yost was horrified. Yost said, "Dutchman, what are you trying to do?" "Stop 'em", replied Schulz. "But you're supposed to play in the line", Yost insisted. "They'll run over us." "Listen Yost", Schulz claims to have said, "My way is best. If any of 'em gets by me, I'll move back into the line and stay there". Yost eventually saw the wisdom in Schulz's technique, and soon nearly all centers were backing up the line on defense. Malcolm Bingay, "A Little About This and That: How Schulz Entered Michigan Still A Mystery," The Morning Herald, May 1, 1951; ; "Frankly Speaking: Schulz' Great Grid Exploits Reviewed," The Long Beach Press-Telegram, April 17, 1951.

(4) As for the 1904 date, see "First linebacker found," AP story, October 1974, found here.

(5) Article posing the question, "Who was the first recognized linebacker?" with answer being Schulz, found here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• No doubt the (at worst) legend of Schulz deserves its place in the article; hence, for example, why I did not delete his picture on the article. Thank you for the extra sources. So is it 1904 or 1905? Is there a specific game which gets credit? I also wonder why the center. Cake (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• The source I found says 1904 but doesn't specify a particular game. I assume the center was the natural spot to back off the line as he was located in the middle of the line and could respond to running plays on either side. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: proposal to permit non-English Wikipedia links in navboxes

There is an ongoing RfC whether to permit non-Wikipedia links in Wikipedia navboxes @ Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?. Given this WikiProject's ongoing interest in navboxes, some of you may be interested in commenting. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)