Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958)

User:UW Dawgs and I have disagreement regarding the naming of List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958). He supports the article titled as is. I feel this current title in an anachronism since the name "Pac-12 Conference" did not come into use until 2011. I believe the article should be title List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings, which reflects the conference name at the time. Technically the Pacific Coast Conference dissolved in June 1959, but the Pac-12 Conference claims the Pacific Coast Conference's history as its own. Nonetheless, I think that technicality is immaterial with regard with the name of this article. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The inconsistencies bother me. If we are going to argue that past PCC articles are better known as Pac-12, then what is the argument for included templates like Template:1916 PCC football standings to show "1916 PCC football standings" instead of "1916 Pac-12 football standings"? And do we retroactively rename all Pac-10 articles as Pac-12? Would like to hear UW Dawgs's perspective. Remember, we can always have redirects for alternative names, whatever the main name we end up choosing.—Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the article should be named with what the conference was called at the time and a redirect should be created with its current name, just like Bagumba says. This is pretty much what we do in other cases such as this. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The narrow focus on this article remains misplaced. We broadly use the contemporary (or final) name for article titles while aggregating the component eras into sections, ex List of Big Eight Conference football standings.

Regardless, the PCC-era content within the Pac-12 standings article has been stable since 05:44, 23 November 2015 when the article was similarly titled "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings" and the PCC-era section was a peer to its sibling eras:

* PCC standings (1916–1958)

* AAWU standings (1959–1967)

* Pacific-8 football standings (1968–1977)

* Pacific-10 standings (1978–2010)

* Pacific-12 standings (2011–present)

The single article was recently split into two articles (1916–1958 and 1959–present) by me per Cat norms, due to technical limitation re display of templates. Those two article groupings seemed reasonable to me, rather than (1916–1967) and (1968–present) where PCC-era could have remained paired with one or more of its sibling eras such as AAWU.

The Pac-12 claims all aspects of the PCC-era within their records as reported in their publications (annual standings, Heisman voting, All-Americans, Col HOF inductions, AP/Coaches' poll, Idaho and Montana H2H series results where neither team was a member of the later 1959–1968 AAWU, etc) 2017 Football Media Guide, pp. 81–113 with identical inclusive treatment seen within the 2017-18 Men's Baskeball Media Guide.

All aspects of our 1915/16-present PCC-era content follows this inclusive view by placement within the our various Pac-12 Conference articles, such as List of Pac-12 Conference champions, Pac-12 Conference men's basketball, Template:Pac-12 Conference men's basketball navbox, Template:Pac-12 Conference football navbox, List of Pac-12 Conference football champions, Pac-12 Conference football statistics, List of All-Pac-12 Conference football teams, etc.

There is currently no Category:Pacific Coast Conference in which to host such the proposed article, for the plain reason that all PCC-era content is already, appropriately within Category:Pac-12 Conference. This proposal would seemingly create our very first "PCC some specific topic" article with the driver being wiki render limitations rather content accuracy.

This article contains the PCC-era of the Pac-12 standings and the formating makes that clear (CE welcome). If necessary, we can change the split to (1916–1967) to make this even more overt. TL/DR - Need to first establish that the PCC is not the Pac-12 in direct conflict with it's published view and our LT treatment, and then "correct" all of our PCC-era content to reflect that. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, I understand that a technical limitation with the template rendering was the impetus for the article split, but that technicality does not override our naming conventions. I think the split at 1958/1959, as you have done, makes the most sense given the organizational change that occurred then. But even if you move the split to 1967/1968, "Pac-12" in the name would still be an inapt anachronism because that term did not come into use until 2011. You'd have to name the article List of Athletic Association of Western Universities football standings (1916–1967), which could be rather confusing. Category:Pac-12 Conference football is perfectly suitable to host List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings, just as Category:Washington Huskies football seasons is suitable to host 1919 Washington Sun Dodgers football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Following your lead, that would clearly be the List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1967) with sections for PCC-era and AAWU-era. That reasonable treatment directly aligns the original article's LT treatment, all of our other Pac-12 articles, the Pac-12's view, and doesn't create a forked "PCC some topic" article. So let's move the AAWU content into the article, update the title, and be done with it. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No that doesn't following my lead. "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1967)" is an anachronism. The proper course of action to rename the article to List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings. Two others editors have expressed support for that view. I'm happy to wait for others to weigh in. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You still seem to be trying to create our first stand-alone PCC article, while I'm trying to convey that it's PCC-era (and AAWU-era, etc) content in 1 of 2 cross-linked Pac-12 standings articles, done in a manner consistent with our long-standing global treatment. In hindsight, I could have initially included the AAWU-era content (or chosen any other arbitrary calendar year such as 1916–19X0) to render this attempted distinction moot. They are the PCC-era standings of the Pac-12 conference. This argument rests solely on the content grouping as currently implemented. Changing the grouping/split in any manner removes the argument. So again, let's change the content split to make this even more clear to the reader, remain consistent, and move on. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

First? What about Pacific Coast Conference?. Again changing the split to 1967/1968 drives the article to be renamed to List of Athletic Association of Western Universities football standings (1916–1967) or something of the sort, but nothing with "Pac-12" in it. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are consistently proposing our very first "PCC some specific topic" article as repeatedly stated. This is a Pac-12 article with era-specific subsection(s), has a peer (List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present)) which follows our "Pac-12" naming convention while using era-specific subsections, and it should logically follow our existing Pac-12 article naming conventions since it renders Pac-12 content. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, okay, I suppose this is the first "PCC some specific topic" article. But we have plenty of other "[old, expired name for some entity] some specific topic" articles, e.g. 1976 Pacific Coast Athletic Association Men's Basketball Tournament, 1910 USC Methodists football team, History of the Chicago Cardinals. We also have a host of "PCC some specific topic" categories, e.g. Category:1916 Pacific Coast Conference football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. None of these newest examples are controversial or even relevant to the logical labeling of dual articles originating from a split of a single article, as necessitated by wiki limitations. Your offered rationale and examples would have us split USC Trojans football into USC Methodists football and USC Trojans football (1914–present), if wiki limitations required a split. This would of course also ignore obvious, logical, and consistent naming structures around all aspects of "USC football," just as you wish to do in the case of the Pac-12 football. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, the history of the article's split and the reason for the split (technical limitations) have no bearing on how the article should be named. The only things that matter are 1) the subject of the article as it now stands and 2) the relevant naming conventions. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, again. Every related category and article including this article's direct sibling use Pac-12 in the aricle title, except for the lone Pacific Coast Conference. 1) The subject of this article is Pac-12 standings. 2) We have a clear naming convention for Pac-12 articles. Your preference forks this treatment, your offered examples are clearly not equivalent, and your offered rationale creates inconsistencies. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, can you explain then why 1919 Washington Sun Dodgers football team is titled as it is? The subject of that article is one season in the history of Washington Huskies football program. We have a clear naming convention for Washington Huskies articles. Do we have an inconsistent, forked treatment there? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

UW Dawgs and I appear to be at in impasse about the relevance of this article's history, namely it creation from a subdivision of another article, on how it should be titled. @Bagumba: @X96lee15: perhaps you could each address that point specifically? Do any others care to comment on this item? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, the very recent editing history and technical origins remain irrelevant. We have an established naming convention and treatment both local to all Pac-12 content and global to the relevant parent cat of this specific article, which to date you have refused to acknowlege, dispute, or reference WP:NAMINGCRITERIA while repeatedly introducing straw men of non-controversial and demonstrably unrelated articles. This specific article is indisputably Pac-12 content, as seen in the LT treatment, the current treatment, and the supporting citations as referenced above. There are five such historical eras referenced within our Pac-12 articles as seen consistently throughout articles within the Pac-12 parent category, yet you remain insistent to elevate this single era above the rest within only this lone, sibling article. As a good faith "solution," I have proposed including the 2nd, AAWU-era from the sibling article to create a pair of era-specific sections (treatment which is identical to its sibling article which currently renders four eras and could be reduced to three eras) to make it even more clear to the reader and your response was to dispute it yet again with another obviously inappropriate straw man article name of List of Athletic Association of Western Universities football standings (1916–1967). UW Dawgs (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Use "List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings" Having seen the arguments, none of these are perfect solutions, so I didn't rule out one or the other just because it was imperfect. My main factor in choosing not to have Pac-12 in the name is that we do not have a current convention to retroactively rename pages just because of a name change. For example, we did not go back and rename 2010 Pacific-10 Conference football season. For teams, the practice since at least 2010 has been to name season articles based on the team's name at the time, and it was reaffirmed in 2015. I saw the argument that it was a technical limitation that forced List of Pac-12 Conference football standings to be split, so it should not force a name change to PCC. However, readers do not know or care why a split took place, all they know is that there are two articles now. It just seems strange to name the PCC standings as "Pac-12" when all the transcluded boxes say "19XX PCC football standings". If 1958 PCC football season was created, 1958 Pac-12 football season would be a redirect only—the standings should not be treated any differently. Finally, I would not support expanding to List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1967). For the readers benefit, we should keep as many years as reasonably possible on the latest standings list. We shouldn't expand the older list primarily because of a preferred title by editors.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting again after both views had been accurately presented.

These types of season list articles make use of era-sections when necessitated to group standings within eras. However, all of the existing articles reflect the current (or final) name in their article naming conventions without controvery. That convention would be narrowly overturned only for this lone sibling article. See the numerous articles which render era-specific sections and templates at the top of article, where that era content does not align with article's name:

• List of Big Ten Conference football standings (1896–1958)
• List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1906–1972)
• List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1973–present)
• List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958)
• List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present)
• List of Big Eight Conference football standings
• List of Big West Conference football standings
• List of Triangular Football League standings

Jweiss11 continues to refuse to acknowlege that this is unambiguously Pac-12 content, despite our LT project-wide treatment and citations. That's the root of their dispute and the apparent cause of the numerous straw men. These stable article conventions show clear and consistent behavior, which we now might overturn for a lone sibling article, without even making reference to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy. That wiki policy invokes:

• Recognizability
• Naturalness
• Precision
• Conciseness
• Consistency

The existing naming convention is clearly superior in at least 4 of 5 policy criteria, with "conciseness" being a wash. Again, thank you for your considered reply, above. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, you are misusing the notion of "straw man". I'm not arguing against a position you're not holding. Your argument is that the whole run of Pac-12 standings templates starting in 1916 is inherently "Pac-12" and that when you subdivide them into different articles, each of them should retain Pac-12 in their title, even if that article terminates at point in history before the name "Pac-12" came into use. The problem is that this a contravention of how we treat articles for entities that have changed names over time. If the subject of an article is an entity—in its totality—that still exists at present, then the article's title reflects the subject's current name, e.g. Miami RedHawks football. But when we subdivide that topic and create an article whose subject terminates at some point in history, then the article's title reflects the subject's name at that termination point, e.g. 1943 Miami Redskins football team. This is what we do for thousands of other articles and categories. My analogies to some of these other articles and categories are certain not straw men. They are exercises intended to drive that point home to you. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be working. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly referencing the non-controversial, long-standing naming convention of stand-alone YYYY team articles (of which I have both created and corrected, many) and then conflating that as equivalent with era sections of conference articles is clearly a straw man -done while refusing to acknowledge the exising naming convention, refusing to directly acknowledge the content as Pac-12, refusing to acknowledge your argument and chosen examples would have us split USC Trojans football into USC Methodists football and USC Trojans football (1914–present), and refusing to reference WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy. Twisting non-controversial content to argue for a single, unprecendented, and inconsistent change is a transparent straw man tactic. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

USC Trojans football should always remain intact in some form, but yes, History of USC Methodists football and History of USC Trojans football (1914–present) would be the proper names for the history articles if they needed to be split, just like we have History of the Chicago Cardinals. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And you just did it again, while dodging a policy-based argument, not acknowledging our global naming conventions, and not acknowleging the Pac-12 nature of the content. We have (had) Thing 1 with Era 1, Era 2, Era 3, Era 4, and Era 5 sections. Your stated argument is an article split elevates the Era into the title, rather than persisting as Thing 1 (XXXX-YYYY) with an Era 1 section and Thing 1 (YYYY-present) with Era 2, Era 3, Era 4, and Era 5 sections. You're welcome to your view, but please don't pretend this is anything more than an invented distraction which is repeatedly failing to support your argument. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Imagine that the history section of Miami RedHawks football was its own article, History of Miami RedHawks football. Then that article go too big, so it had to be broken up. The choice was made that one of the new articles would be for the "Early history (1888–1968)" section of the main article. How would you title that article? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And yet another pivot. You appear very invested in your proposed fork, yet won't acknowlege any aspects of our current treatment. Why won't you 1) acknowlege that PCC content is an era of the Pac-12 (as seen throughout our treatment and cites), 2) that our Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure and those articles render PCC-era content, and 3) use those facts to offer a policy-based argument for your proposed fork? UW Dawgs (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Consider that USC Methodists football, 1888–1910 was indeed an article before it was broken up into individual season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This is literally your worst analog to date, as each of the 21 ensuring articles retained exactly their prior naming convention (Category:USC Trojans football seasons) while you are now actively arguing directly against retaining an established naming convention. So I ask, yet again. 1), 2), and 3), will you drop the straw men and now pivot to directly respond on point? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the 21 articles after the breakup isn't what's relevant in this case. What's relevant is that USC Methodists football, 1888–1910 carried the old "Methodists" name because that's what USC football was called at the time. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I ask, yet again. 1), 2), and 3), will you drop the straw men and now pivot to directly respond on point? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no straw men for me to drop. If you ask me a clear question, I will answer it. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Paste: Why won't you 1) acknowlege that PCC content is an era of the Pac-12 (as seen throughout our treatment and cites), 2) that our Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure and those articles render PCC-era content, and 3) use those facts to offer a policy-based argument for your proposed fork? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

1) PCC is indeed an era of Pac-12. I have never denied that. I noted that business with the different charter between the PCC and what is now the Pac-12, but granted that it was not relevant here. 2) Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure—yes indeed they do, but there's nothing unique about the Pac-12 there. Our consistent naming structure is built to reflect old names where appropriate. 3) Naturalness, consistency, precision, and conciseness point to naming the article List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings. "Pacific Coast Conference" is less recognizable than "Pac-12", but the relationship there is more or less the same as "USC Methodists" vs. "USC Trojans", "Western Conference" vs. "Big Ten Conference", and countless other analogs. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Proposed fork is clearly against wiki policy

Thank you for finally, directly responding and actively affirming our project-wide consensus.

We have interlinked sibling articles of List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958) and List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present) per Category norms in every respect.

The above proposal is to fork this pair into List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings which is already a LT redirect and List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present) by renaming the former article against our consensus treatment seen in both directly-related categories.

Policy at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA informs on good article naming conventions:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. College football fans/readers will universally recognize the Pac-12 standings content by continued use of current name of "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958)." In your words, "PCC is indeed an era of Pac-12." And readers are indisputably more likely to recognize the current and correct 'Pac-12' name than they are to even be aware of the 'PCC' which has been in disuse for 60 years. This is clear and unambiguous.

• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. It is unreasonable to argue that readers are likely to search via 'Pacific Coast Conference' when the PCC name has been in disuse for 60 years and is merely one of four former names. Conversely, all searches and links to articles for Pac-12 content agnostic of the 5 eras currently point to 'Pac-12' titled articles including this specific pair. There are zero topic-specific PCC articles to date and that is unlikely to change per consensus to aggregate our Pac-12 content under 'Pac-12' titled articles, so search and link behavior of this specific article pair already appropriate exists exclusively under 'Pac-12' and clearly breaks upon forking to 'PCC.' This is overwhelming.

• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958)" correctly and unambiguously identifies this article as both Pac-12 standings and from a specific, prior era dating from the early to mid 1900s. "Pacific Coast Conferences football standings" fails to identify the content as Pac-12 at all, fails to describe it as being from a specific era of any sort, and breaks the intuitive and conveyed relationship to its linked sibling article. Your words, "PCC is indeed an era of Pac-12," directly confirm the omission of 'Pac-12' creates confusion where none currently exists -throughout any other Pac-12 article or this pair of standings.

• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. While the two text lengths might be a push, the current article by use of the appended " (1916–1958)" callout clearly helps to directly identify the subject (regardless of Pac-12 vs PCC) and also to distinguish the subject from its sibling article. The proposed title fork does the exact opposite, both failing to identify the subject of Pac-12 standings and needlessly distinguishes it from like-subjects, specifically including its cross-linked sibling article.

• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. The article is about an era of Pac-12 and football standings. The current article name is universally in use, both broadly in all Pac-12 content (Category:Pac-12 Conference) and narrowly within every 'List of XYZ football standings' articles per (Category:NCAA Division I FBS football standings) which exclusively uses the the current/final conference name in titles. The proposed fork literally has no peers of any kind in the either cat. In your exact words, "Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure—yes indeed they do." This is unambiguous.

As the proposal is decisively against policy, and you are now in stated agreement with consensus that Pac-12 content is correctly described by the current article name, there is no policy basis to support your proposed article fork. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, both titles are imperfect. For "Pac-12", I'd say it is not consistent, because we generally use the name that was prevalent at the time. Would you use the title 1958 PCC football season or 1958 Pac-12 football season? To be consistent with the names of team season articles, we'd use "PCC".—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone other than UW Dawgs objects, shall we move forward and rename to List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Will you be offering a policy argument before your fork goes to RFC? UW Dawgs (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I, and others here, already have. RFC if you must. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The policy is simply WP:CONSENSUS. Any long-time editor has felt like they were the lone voice of reason at one point or another. We just have to accept when nobody will agree with us and move on.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is the relevant policy. And it took an absurd amount of effort to get the forker to even reference that policy[1] and their effort was cursory at best. So yes, RFC will follow, of course. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, we spent a lot of time and effort, unsuccessfully, trying to get to you see obvious analogs with other articles that carry old names like 1919 Washington Sun Dodgers football team. Please open the RFC when you see fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

BCS AQ

User:AllisonFoley has changed a lot of pages recently from saying “BCS” and “non-BCS” to “BCS AQ conference” and “BCS non-AQ confernce”. Isn’t this completely unnecessary if not down right false? That’s basically saying all FBS teams were in BCS conferences. I’ve began undoing these changes because they don’t seem to make sense. Am I justified in this thinking? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Before the CFP, it was commonplace to refer to the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, and SEC as the "BCS" conferences, which was generally understood to be shorthand for the BCS automatically qualifying conferences. Today we talk about the "Power 5" in the same way (the same group minus the Big East). I don't really see a problem with AllisonFoley's edits; she is merely clarifying the shorthand usage of "BCS" as they were intended to mean "major conference", or in 1998-2013 usage, AQ. Ostealthy (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But the non-BCS conferences were not part of the BCS so calling them BCS non AQ in inaccurate. The BCS was not all FBS conferences. This would effect hundreds of pages. Why change them all now to a more confusing wording? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But the non-AQ conferences *were* "part of the BCS" in that they still (nominally, at least) competed to go to the same BCS Championship game as the other conferences and fought for spots in the same BCS bowls. "BCS non-AQ" can easily be interpreted as "conferences that were not automatically qualifiers under the BCS". It's simply another way of saying the same thing as "non-BCS" that is, in my opinion, not confusing. I don't think the phrase "BCS non-AQ" necessarily implies "signatory of the BCS's charter".

Now, I wouldn't suggest changing every single instance of "BCS" to "BCS AQ", but I am indifferent to the changes that have already been made. Ostealthy (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Using BCS that way indicates that all FBS teams and conferences were part of the BCS. That is not true. Nobody ever referred to the non-BCS conferences as BCS-non AQ. BCS and FBS can’t be used to refer to the same thing which is eccentrically what this is doing. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO, you're right Bsuorangecrush. BCS was a specific term (apparently used from 1998–2013) that is no longer in use. AQ and non-AQ are also specific terms that are now in use. Their usages didn't overlap and using them together is incorrect. BCS is equivalent to AQ and non-BCS is now equivalent to non-AQ. BCS AQ correct. It's kid of like saying a "Division I-A FBS school" or a "Division IAA FCS school". — X96lee15 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. BCS AQ and non-AQ were labels of the BCS era, not terms used today. -AllisonFoley (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Every FBS conference was part of the BCS. There were BCS automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences and BCS non-automatic qualifying (non-AQ) conferences. Referring to conferences as "BCS conferences" and "non-BCS conferences" is false labeling. I'm simply correcting all of the mistakes. -AllisonFoley (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Every conference was not part of the BCS. There were the BCS 6 and all the rest were non-BCS. You aren’t correcting mistakes, you are changing how they were known. Why else do you think there are so many pages using the original nomenclature? You’re saying they have all been wrong for years now? They were already all worded correct. Example: when Boise State beat Virginia Tch and Georgia those were wins over BCS teams. When they beat Toledo and Bowling Green they weren’t referred to wins over BCS-non AQ. Nobody ever referred to it that way. It was simply BCS and non-BCS. Adding AQ is completely unneeded and was never used at the time. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Those conferences were commonly mislabeled by the media due to ignorance or worse, but that does not change the fact that every FBS conference was part of the BCS and that the conferences were either BCS automatic qualifying (AQ) or non-automatic qualifying (non-AQ). As a trusted go-to source for information, Wikipedia editors have a duty to its readers to not copy inaccuracies but to display precise and accurate information. If you need me to provide sources to prove my case, I will, but I think most every member of this WikiProject knows that AQ and non-AQ were the proper distinctions between the two groups of FBS conferences during the BCS era. -AllisonFoley (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Obvoiusly not “most every member of this wiki project” knows that those were the proper distinctions since it was not widely used. That is asinine. If every FBS team was considered BCS then what is the point of even saying BCS? AQ and non AQ would be all that is needed. But no, nobody ever said it that way. It was BCS and non-BCS. Changing the nomenclature on hundreds of pages 5 years after it desolved and adding in extra phrasing is completely absurd. Just google BCS non-BCS and there are a ton of examples of this being the widely accepted phrasing (I tried to link some pages but it said some of the sites were blacklisted from Wikipedia?). Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because you used incorrect nomenclature doesn't mean most others didn't know the correct terminology. Sure, you can just shorten it to AQ conference if you want, but I think "BCS" is an important qualifier for "AQ" and "non-AQ" to give those terms context. And many used AQ and non-AQ as those terms were widely used. A simple Google search shows that. I think we've already established that those BCS and non-BCS terms were commonly used incorrectly as stated directly on BCSfootball.org. Just because it was common doesn't make it correct. The official BCS website makes it clear that BCS conference refers to all FBS conferences and AQ and non-AQ were the BCS conference distinctions. I took the initiative to correct the terminology on all of those pages so nobody else had to bother with it. Maybe reverting all my corrections back to incorrect terminology was absurd and unnecessary work. - AllisonFoley (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I stand by my reverts. There was no reason for any of those changes. They were totally fine for 5 years. It wasn’t “incorrect terminology”. It was the accepted terminology that confused no one. No reason to change the commonly used names to some confusing form that nobody has ever used. If they were all so wrong this would have been an issue 5 years ago. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No reason for those changes? Those articles were incorrect, according to the official BCS website like I've linked a couple times for you. I also didn't know there was a 5-year statute of limitations to correct an article on Wikipedia. The only confusing thing is insisting on using incorrect terminology that means something other than what is intended. Automatic qualifying (AQ/non-AQ) status is what clarifies exactly what is being referenced, the exact opposite of confusing. You keep saying that AQ and non-AQ are confusing terms that nobody has ever used, and that's 100% false. The BCS, ESPN, CBS, Fox, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, etc. all used AQ and non-AQ. The list goes on. Additionally, the AQ and non-AQ terms were used throughout numerous Wikipedia articles before I made any changes. I'm not making all this up. I promise! -AllisonFoley (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

here, here, here, here, here, here. ALL OF THEM USE BCS AND NON BCS!!! And that is just from the first page on google. Stop saying that is is 100% false to use it that way when it is the widely accepted nomenclature. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I get it. Many people used the incorrect term. I'm not disputing that. I'm also not going to sit here and link the hundreds of thousands of articles that used BCS AQ/non-AQ correctly. That would be silly. Anyone can see with a simple Google search. What I said was 100% false is your claim that AQ/non-AQ is "some confusing form that nobody has ever used." That is 100% false, and I think everyone here can see that. AQ/non-AQ was commonly used, and it's the most accurate terminology. The official BCS website clearly states the way you are insisting on using the term is wrong. That's why it should be changed from the inaccurate terminology you insist on keeping. Just because something has been wrong for five years doesn't mean it can't be corrected. AllisonFoley (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You are the only one who wants to change the accepted terminology. Just leave it be. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think @Ostealthy: shared agreement with my corrections. It just feels like you are unilaterally shouting me down and reverting my corrections in order to maintain an inaccurate usage of college football nomenclature for some reason. I respectfully didn't revert any of your edits in order to avoid an edit war. I feel strongly about making these corrections because I think it's our duty to make this encyclopedia as accurate as possible and not be a source of the spread of ignorance regarding the BCS system. I'd like to read more opinions on this matter from others. Thank you for your patience, and I'd appreciate comments from other members of this WikiProject because I don't think we've come to a consensus on this issue yet. -AllisonFoley (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't "inaccurate usage of college football nomenclature" if everyone had zero problem with it until you brought it up years after the fact. It was absolutely fine the way it was and confused no one.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

From the official website BCSfootball.org: All 10 conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision are considered BCS conferences. There is some confusion associated with this as the term "BCS conference" is often used incorrectly to describe an "automatic qualifying" conference. The non-AQ conferences are just as much BCS conferences as the six AQ conferences. Conferences earn AQ status by on-field competition. The 10 BCS Conferences are the American Athletic Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference, Pac-12 Conference, Southeastern Conference and Sun Belt Conference. -AllisonFoley (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well there you have it! Sidenote: it would probably be helpful to link to Power Five conferences#Under the BCS system whenever using the AQ acronym. Ostealthy (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm pretty sure that "BCS" means "Bowl Championship Series" -- what does "AQ" stand for--"Automatic Qualifier" ?? If I have to scratch my head to figure it out, then other readers will too. WP:LTTAUTMAOK.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1939 Nebraska vs. Kansas State football game

An AfD has opened for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1939 Nebraska vs. Kansas State football game. It once again raises the question as to what standards should apply for the creation of stand-alone articles on regular season football games. If you have views on the subject, fell free to comment there. Cbl62 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 team page schedules

What should the policy be on converting the team schedules on 2018 team articles to the new template? I wouldn't mind doing it, since I view the new schedule template to be far superior to the old one, but I just want some sort of confirmation before I go around and change all of them.

It's also worth noting that most of the 2018 articles I created were with the new template, listed below are a few from FBS and a few from FCS.

• 2018 Maryland Terrapins football team#Schedule
• 2018 Old Dominion Monarchs football team#Schedule
• 2018 Arkansas Razorbacks football team#Schedule
• 2018 Eastern Illinois Panthers football team#Schedule
• 2018 Monmouth Hawks football team#Schedule
• 2018 Presbyterian Blue Hose football team#Schedule

If I can get several users to give me the go-ahead, I can begin converting them. PCN02WPS 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There is as automated process to make the conversion. Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21#Update on new CFB schedule templates). User:Frietjes is the person to consult on technical issues here. I'm not sure that this process is bug-free though, as you can see the poll links in the footer did not convert properly. I tried this out on 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team and 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team a few weeks back. We need to convert all 11,000+ instances of the old templates to the new templates, so that we can resolve the hanging style fork here and delete the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally as someone who makes a lot of updates and creates a majority of the season articles, I can't stand that new template. It's so much easier if each field has their own line. When it is set up like this

{{CFB schedule | time = y | opprank = y | rank = y | tv = y | attend = y | rankyear = 2017 | poll = AP | timezone = Central | September 2 | 7:00 p.m. |v| #3 [[2017 Florida State Seminoles football team|Florida State]] | 1 | [[Mercedes-Benz Stadium]] | [[Atlanta|Atlanta, GA]] ([[Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game]]) | [[Saturday Night Football|ABC]] | W 24−7 | 76,330 | September 9 | 2:30 p.m. | | [[2017 Fresno State Bulldogs football team|Fresno State]]<ncg> | 1 | [[Bryant–Denny Stadium]] | [[Tuscaloosa, Alabama|Tuscaloosa, AL]] | [[ESPN College Football|ESPN2]] | W 41−10 | 101,127 | October 14 | 6:15 p.m. | | [[2017 Arkansas Razorbacks football team|Arkansas]]<hc> | 1 | Bryant–Denny Stadium | Tuscaloosa, AL | ESPN | W 41–9 | 101,821 | November 25 | 2:30 p.m. |@| #6 [[2017 Auburn Tigers football team|Auburn]] | 1 | [[Jordan–Hare Stadium]] | [[Auburn, Alabama|Auburn, AL]] ([[Iron Bowl]]) | CBS | L 14–26 | 87,451 }}

it can be hard to find where to add results. It's far too clunky. It is so much easier when each field has it's own line.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Bsuorangecrush, I agree with you on each field having its own line. Makes things much easier to parse and update. And I'm in favor of using the version of the new templates that uses named parameters. See 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team for an example. Does that work for you? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That format seems fine. The other format is terrible. I would actually be less likely to make updates if all pages were changed to that format.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bsuorangecrush: – as a frequent article creator, what is it that you don't like about the template? After using it for several articles, I can assert that it is far easier to create articles as it eliminates the monotonous and repetitive copy-pasting that is necessary when using the old template, and it also reduces greatly the time required to create such an article.
Also – @Jweiss11:, can I see what those "named parameters" might look like in the code, just out of curiosity? PCN02WPS 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the fields are named. When one goes to update they can easily enter data in the wrong field. It is so much easier to see it say "score=" or "attend=" rather that just " |   |   | " Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The beauty of the new template is that it accommodates both named and unnamed parameters. I find the unnamed parameters much easier, but for those who prefer named parameters, it can be done that way as well. Output is identical. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, output is identical and that is good. But User:PCN02WPS asked "If I can get several users to give me the go-ahead, I can begin converting them." I would rather them not be converted. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS:, please see 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team for an example with named parameters. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Both versions of the new template (named and unnamed template parameters) are acceptable. Each user is free to use whichever format he/she finds preferable. What should not be used is the old template. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, you should probably tell that the editors who don't look at this talk page and who created scores of 2018 articles in recent weeks using the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: that being said, would it be alright for me to convert some of the dozens of 2018 old-template articles to the new template?
Also, @Jweiss11 and Bsuorangecrush: I can't see how the new template with named parameters offers any benefit over the old template. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point of the new template to eliminate the "q-and-a" that had to be completed for every game on a team's schedule? At a glance, the 1997 Michigan schedule's code looks almost the same to the old template.
One last thing, in response to Bsuorangecrush's argument that it's hard to find where to add results; I agree if you format it as one giant block of text as you did in the example. In my opinion, it's much, much easier to navigate if you give each game its own line, like below. Do it a few times and you can learn pretty quickly where each field's information should be placed; any doubts could be easily solved with a simple edit preview and a correction if necessary.

Example

{{CFB schedule | time = y | opprank = y | rank = y | tv = y | attend = y 
| rankyear = 2017 | poll = AP | timezone = Central

| September 2 | 7:00 p.m. |v| #3 [[2017 Florida State Seminoles football team|Florida State]] | 1 | [[Mercedes-Benz Stadium]] | [[Atlanta|Atlanta, GA]] ([[Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game]]) | [[Saturday Night Football|ABC]] | W 24−7 | 76,330

| September 9 | 2:30 p.m. | | [[2017 Fresno State Bulldogs football team|Fresno State]]<ncg> | 1 | [[Bryant–Denny Stadium]] | [[Tuscaloosa, Alabama|Tuscaloosa, AL]] | [[ESPN College Football|ESPN2]] | W 41−10 | 101,127

| October 14  | 6:15 p.m. | | [[2017 Arkansas Razorbacks football team|Arkansas]]<hc> | 1 | Bryant–Denny Stadium | Tuscaloosa, AL | ESPN | W 41–9 | 101,821

| November 25 | 2:30 p.m. |@| #6 [[2017 Auburn Tigers football team|Auburn]] | 1 | [[Jordan–Hare Stadium]] | [[Auburn, Alabama|Auburn, AL]] ([[Iron Bowl]]) | CBS | L 14–26 | 87,451
}}

In my opinion, the above example demonstrates that it's not all that hard to find where to put a certain piece of information if you take a couple seconds and look; after doing this a few times, my experience has shown that the more you do it, the easier it becomes. PCN02WPS 00:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO, you offer to convert manually 2018 season articles using the old template to the new template is a good one that should be encouraged. Cbl62 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, the point of the new template was to remove the necessity of having turn off certain fields in every row of the table when they are not applicable. Unnamed parameters are a huge mistake for long-term stability and development. In your unnamed parameter example above, the gamename field (e.g. "Iron Bowl" is in the wrong place). Things like that are much harder to fix in an unnamed parameter / mixed text scenario than they would be when each field is clearly named and delineated. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Both are acceptable; that is the compromise that was settled upon after much debate. PCN02WPS is free to decide which they prefer. Cbl62 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, that's a huge waste of time and may further augment the hanging style fork here. The resolution here is to debug the conversion process and run it via bot on all 11,000 instances of the old template to convert them to the new with named parameters. Perhaps you would like take the lead on that? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This type of bot-driven conversion is not an area of my personal expertise. When you asked about this several months ago, Frietjes gave you instructions on how to initiate the process. Have you tried executing those instructions? Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Editors are free, I guess, to create new tables using unnamed parameters--although those should be converted to named parameters by an automated process. It is not, whoever, acceptable to take the old templates with named parameters and convert them to new templates with unnamed parameters. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The compromise reached is that each user can decide whether to use named or unnamed parameters. There is no decree that everything must be converted ultimately to named parameters. Cbl62 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cbl62, as I explained above in this thread, I've run the conversion process manually on two articles, but it still needs to be debugged, because the poll fields in the footer aren't converting properly. The gamename fields also aren't rendering in the correct spots--they should be rendering in the opponent column, not the site column, but that's not a function of the conversion. That's a function of the new template itself. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So why don't you try to sort that out with Frietjes? Cbl62 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Because I've been busy working on other things. Perhaps the person who engineered this problem should be one to sort it out with Frietjes and resolve it? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your ongoing hostility on this issue is wholly unproductive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile at all. I'm speaking honestly and precisely about what has developed. What would be very helpful would be for you take responsibility for your advocacy and action on this matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You are free to use named parameters, and others are free to use unnamed parameters. Instead of trolling, maybe you should try to ask Frietjes (politely, I'd suggest) for help in the conversion. Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Instead of asserting false charges like "trolling", you should refocus on yourself and take some responsibility for actions on this subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I take pride in my work here. Focus on your own work, and please stop trolling. Cbl62 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You do a lot of great work here. But you've been woefully negligent on this template subject. Please also stop issuing false statements about other editors. Lying about others is not something anyone should take pride in. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, the introduction of the new template and, in particular, the unnamed parameters option has been a huge success. It allows schedule charts to be created with great ease and speed and has enabled the speedy creation of hundreds of schedule templates in that past six months, greatly reducing the backlog. I do take pride in that. Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You're still failing to own up to your principal role in engineering the hanging template fork we have now, while dismissing concerns about it throughout the process and failing to take measures to resolve it. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62 and Jweiss11: Several things: Jweiss, your comment about "Iron Bowl" being in the wrong place should be taken up with User:Bsuorangecrush, as I copied the block of text in his example and re-formatted it. Additionally Jweiss, correct me if I am mistaken, but I feel as if you are being overly defensive over an opinion that may not make much sense. My suggestion was just to convert the old templates (which have been explicitly stated by several users as being not what we want) to the new template. I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have a history of blindly clinging to a particular, very specific opinion about how templates should operate, and then verbally degrading anyone who speaks to the contrary (e.g. "woefully negligent"; "Lying about others is not something anyone should take pride in"; etc.). I see no reason why editors shouldn't be free to convert to whichever version of the template they prefer (named vs. unnamed); as Cbl stated, "There is no decree that everything must be converted ultimately to named parameters". I am simply trying to help in this transition, and if my usage of unnamed-parameter templates is, as you stated, "a huge waste of time", I am willing to do the 2018 conversions myself, perhaps with the help of Cbl. Thanks, PCN02WPS 03:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, the gamename placement is not an issue to be taken up specifically with Bsuorangecrush. In developing the new templates, we decided that the gamename field made more sense as a parenthetical in the opponent field, not the site field. Everyone involved agreed on this. Unfortunately, this has not been implemented properly in the new templates. Again, if you want to convert to the new templates with named parameters, please go for it, although it would be most efficient to use an automated process. What I don't want to see is the clear delineation of named parameters in the old templates destroyed in the conversion. Finally, your analysis of the conflict between Cbl62 and me is inverted ethically. Cbl issued a false statement about me. I admonished him not to do so. Apparently, this is degrading on my part? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And irrespective of the placement, it's not acceptable for two discrete data points (e.g. site and gamename) to be bunched together as one text field when they are two distinct fields in the old templates. This is very sloppy and a step backwards from the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You are not the Czar of Wikipedia, JW. If PNC02WPS wishes to help by converting the 2018 schedules to the new template, they are free to do so using either named or unnamed parameters. You have no unilateral authority to direct otherwise. Moving the rivalry notations is simply easily remedied and is something with which I am happy to assist. Cbl62 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You have no unilateral authority to direct anything on this matter either. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! I'm not the one trying to issue unilateral directives to PCN02WPS. Cbl62 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

But you are issuing arguments of about what is and is not acceptable regarding the usage of these templates, as am I. If I'm issuing directives, then so you are. What you should be focused on is cleaning up the mess you made and not demanding that others (like me) do it for you. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I am merely reciting the consensus reached 6 months ago that both named and unnamed parameters are acceptable. You, on the other hand, are trying to override the consensus and dictate that only named parameters are acceptable. As for the mass conversion, you were the one from the outset concerned about that. That was your pet project. You sought Frietjes' assistance in that regard, but (par for the course) you were pushy, and you didn't get all the technical help you hoped for. Don't cry to me, or try to shift blame, about the results of your own actions. I have never professed to be a programmer nor to have the ability to engage in bot-directed mass conversions. In the meantime, PCN and I will take a stab at doing some manual conversions. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss: My apologies, then, I suppose; I was unaware that the rivalry was moved to the team name field. I was merely trying to keep consistent with where it is placed in the old template. Furthermore, Jweiss, what was the false statement that Cbl issued? I was not only talking about the issue here, but also your "dust-up" with BrownHairedGirl, which I recently read. Finally, in your last comment, you stated that you believed that Cbl had made a mess; I find this not to be true, as here they were merely trying to offer me a clear, agreed-upon answer to my question. Cbl was also not demanding that others do "it" for him, whatever "it" may be; I volunteered to do these conversions by hand, myself, and just came here for permission. PCN02WPS 04:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, I'm not a programmer either. You are the one who enlisted Frietjes' assistance to pump out a flawed version of the new template with no regard for converting and depreciating the old template. You quite literally argued that it didn't matter that we had two sets of duplicate templates, even though User:Bagumba and others echoed my concerns there. And here are you now, shirking your culpability in this mess while lying about others. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's key exchange on that last point from January (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21:

Are you planning to planning to keep the old template or submit it for deletion? Fbdave (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So long as the output is the same, why not let individual editors decide which template works best for them? Maintaining two templates doesn't seem particularly burdensome of fraught with peril. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity and long-term stability, we should certainly not have the new template and the old set of templates co-existing for more than a short transition period. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We should be working to make the new one the best one, and migrate and deprecate the old one.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And we should make sure the niche editors who typically create the articles for upcoming seasons know they should be using a new template. Lizard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lizard, yes indeed. Deprecating the old templates and converting all tranclusions to the new template will be necessary. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Jweiss & Bagumba. We should only be using one uniform schedule template. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, the false statement by Cbl is the assertion that I am a "troll", which a person who deliberately posts off-topic or inflammatory content to derail a forum. Everything I post here is in service of the project, to improve the encyclopedia. I'm very concerned here that we are messing up a core structure of this part of the encyclopedia. I'd be happy to talk with you about the "dust up" episode you referenced, but it's probably best not to discuss it further here as it would unnecessarily complicate this discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As for where Cbl demanded someone else (me) to clean up the flaws in the template he pushed through, please see his comment above, "So why don't you try to sort that out with Frietjes?" Jweiss11 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The passage you quote proves my point, JW. You advocated deprecating the old template. I am not here today to say we shouldn't do that. The reason that effort got derailed is not because of any lapse on my part (as I've now said three time, I'm not a programmer). Rather, it got derailed because Frietjes wouldn't do it for you (after you tried to push that upon them) and instead gave you instructions on how to do it, and you dropped the ball. If you want to do a mass conversion, go for it, but don't blame me for your own actions and inactions. And BTW here's the definition of "trolling": "make a deliberately ... provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." Your aggressive pestering and baseless blame-laying, and your history of name-calling, making accusations of defamation, etc., and other conduct that led to your recent experience at ANI, can certainly create the appearance of fitting that definition. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't drop the ball on the conversions. That's not my responsibility as I'm not the one who pushed through the new forking templates. I did the best I could to point out problems as you pushed the new template freight train downhill. What have you done to resolve the fork and make the conversions? The response I want from you is to own up to your culpability and see to it that the problems you negligently engineered are resolved. And please stop lying about me. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You did indeed drop the ball. Check the talk page history. You were the one pushing for mass conversion. You began the process with Frietjes. Frietjes gave you instructions (see diff), and you simply dropped the ball. Your attempt to shift the blame to me is bad form. Cbl62 (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The point you seem to keep missing is that that the conversions are a necessary, binding consequence of the creation of the new templates. They aren't optional, despite that way you clear stated it in January and seem to still feel about it. You engineered the new templates. You should see that the necessary, binding consequences are met. Now please clean the mess you orchestrated and stop blaming others and lying about them. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

JW -- The point I have made repeatedly is this: I am not responsible for the mass bot-driven conversions. I never volunteered for that job. Nor was I tasked with that job. Nor do I have the technical know-how to do it even if I chose to do so. You, on the other hand, picked up that ball and then dropped it. Now stop this nonsense and go to sleep -- it's 2 a.m. back east and I assume you need to work in the morning. Cbl62 (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Just going to butt in really quick; I'm most likely going to begin 2018 old→new template manual conversion tomorrow; if any editor wishes to convert any of my work from unnamed to named parameters, they may feel free to do so. Hopefully this argument will find a dignified end. PCN02WPS 05:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That incredibly counter productive. Please do not destroy any named parameters. I will have to revert any such changes. You can convert to the name parameters even faster the with instructions linked above. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop acting like a dictator. On the one hand, you complain about the slow conversion. Then you attack someone who seeks to help with the conversion. Unnamed and named parameters are both acceptable. If PCN02WPS is willing to help, he should be encouraged and thanked. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Destroying parameters is not acceptable. You position continues to be incredibly negligent toward the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Converting to the new template is perfectly appropriate. Your obstinate refusal to abide by the accepted compromise (i.e., that named and unnamed parameters can co-exist in the new template with both being acceptable) is what is problematic. Cbl62 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

CBl is now deleting named parameters in new templates. Please see recent edits at 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team. Can someone step in here and put a stop to this? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What I did in that case is to convert from the old template to the new template. That is entirely appropriate. Your insistence that every schedule have named parameters is an attempt to renege on the compromise that was reached, i.e., that the new template be designed to accommodate dual syntax in which both named and unnamed parameters are acceptable. Cbl62 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you converted the new template with named parameters to the new template with unnamed parameters. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I mistakenly though 1901 Michigan was an old template. I was in error on that one and apologize, but converting old templates to new templates with unnamed parameters, as proposed by PCN02WPS, is wholly unobjectionable and appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Conversions can be made by adding {{subst:#invoke:CFB schedule/convert|subst| at the top of the table, before the {{CFB Schedule Start}} and }} to the bottom after the {{CFB Schedule End}}. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Although there are some problems in some cases with footer poll links andthe placement of the gamename field needs to be fixed. Can we reengage Frietjes to fix those problems? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Can we reengage Frietjes?" Re-engaging Frietjes is what I suggested that you do at the beginning of this discussion, but you ignored that and decided to launch an offensive blaming me for things wholly outside my area of expertise. Took a while, but you've finally come around. Please feel free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, I have no plans to convert any named-parameter new templates, as they are perfectly functional. The only thing I will be replacing is old templates, and old templates only. PCN02WPS 06:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, can you please use the above instructions to convert them? Or wait until the whole thing is debugged and botted? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, I tested that code on the 2016 California Vulcans football team page, you can see the results. I can see no problems with this and, unless I come across a major bug (which I don't forsee), I will be proceeding forward using this method. PCN02WPS 06:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, check out the poll link in the footer. It points to 2016 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings. It should point to 2016 NCAA Division II football rankings. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, just fixed that, I've converted the following 2018 articles as tests, if you could take a look at these: California (PA), Mercyhurst. I tried to convert several NEC articles, but I got several bugs that prevented me from doing so. PCN02WPS 06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Just realized that the aforementioned bugs were entirely due to my error. @Jweiss11: could you take a look at the following converted 2018 articles? Bryant, Central Connecticut, Duquesne. PCN02WPS 06:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, there is no poll link at all displaying in footer of those last three examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I just took a look at the conversion of the Bryant page. That seems perfectly acceptable. It still has the fields named and doesn't just look like a confusing clump of data. I'm fine with this. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it too, but bear in mind that the new template was intentionally designed with dual syntax, allowing either named or unnamed parameters. Cbl62 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: if you put in a rank in any "rank" field, or toggle on the "opprank" field, the poll link will display in the footer. This is demonstrated at 2018 Duquesne Dukes football team. @Bsuorangecrush and Cbl62: I'm going to continue conversions with this method, just due to time. Keep in mind that any manual conversions I do will be from old template → un-named parameters, but I don't forsee myself having to do this. Just thinking ahead here, unless anyone opposes, once 2018 is done I will most likely move back and convert 2017. PCN02WPS 16:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am greatly against changing the templates to the un-named parameters.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The unnamed parameters is already part of the new template. The template has dual syntax. The dual syntax proposal was discussed at length and approved, and unnamed parameters have now been rolled out into hundreds of schedule charts already. In creating schedule charts for season articles that have none, it is a huge time savings and will continue to be utilized. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we're at the point where consensus has changed and we no longer have it for the unnamed parameters. I'm prepared to RFC this if need be. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of unnamed parameters as part of the dual syntax in the new template has proven to be enormously successful, enabling the rollout in less than six months of more than 600 new schedule charts in articles previously lacking them. That's extraordinary progress by any measure! The main concern expressed was that editors would enter data in the wrong cell, resulting in charts that read out as error output. That concern has proven to be unfounded, as I've found such errors in none of the 600+ new charts utilizing unnamed parameters. Should your pique nevertheless move you to initiate an RFC to eliminate a function that has contributed enormously to Wikipedia's coverage of college football's history, well, that's on you. Cbl62 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62, Jweiss11, and Bsuorangecrush: happy to say that all 2018 FBS and FCS articles have been converted to the new template. PCN02WPS 03:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, PCN! Cbl62 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Poll fields

@PCN02WPS:. Please my recent edits at 2018 Yale Bulldogs football team. That is how the poll fields are intended to be set up. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: noted. Thank you, I'll correct the 2018 ones I've already converted. PCN02WPS 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. Much appreciated. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Just an update: I've converted all teams in the Big Sky, Big South, CAA, Big Sky, Ivy League, and MEAC.

Looks pretty good from the few I've looked at.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Rivalry games in schedule

@Jweiss11, Cbl62, and Bsuorangecrush: I have another small question - can we get a system for denoting rivalry games applied to team pages? From what I've seen, rivalry games are usually denoted in one of three ways: the name of the rivalry (Southwest Classic), or "rivalry", starting with either capital (Rivalry) and lowercase (rivalry). These are applied inconsistently across team pages and I'd be willing to convert the 2018 pages if we can come to a consensus about which to use.

Here's a few examples, taken from the Arkansas-Texas A&M game:

Date	Time	Opponent	Site	TV	Result	Attendance
September 29		vs. Texas A&M	AT&T Stadium Arlington, TX (Southwest Classic)
September 29		vs. Texas A&M	AT&T Stadium Arlington, TX (Rivalry)
September 29		vs. Texas A&M	AT&T Stadium Arlington, TX (rivalry)
September 29		vs. Texas A&M	AT&T Stadium Arlington, TX (rivalry)
September 29		vs. Texas A&M	AT&T Stadium Arlington, TX (rivalry)
Rankings from AP Poll released prior to the game All times are in Central time

For what it's worth, I'd prefer (rivalry) next to the site name for all rivalry games, with a link to the appropriate rivalry game's page, but that's just my opinion. PCN02WPS 14:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rivalry is not a proper noun, and its usage in a parenthetical in schedule charts should not be capitalized. It should be "(rivalry)". As for the location of the parenthetical, the discussion earlier this year resulted in a consensus that it should appear next to the opponent's name, not next to the site. This makes sense because the rivalry is with the opponent, not with the site. Accordingly, the fourth listed options is the correct one IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What would we do about bowl games and exhibition game names (see 2018 Drake Bulldogs football team)? Should those be treated the same as rivalries? PCN02WPS 15:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11 and Bsuorangecrush: would you two support if I were to change the rivalry denotations to the fourth example in the chart for all 2018 FBS/FCS articles? PCN02WPS 03:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no to the fourth example. I think it would look terrible to have it next to the team name. I'd vote for keeping it after the city.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that if the rivalry has a name it should be called by its name, many do not have names so in those cases keep (rivalry). Bowl games will probably be treated the same as well, unless a new field is added specifically for them. Mjs32193 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mjs32193.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The gamename field in the old templates renders rivalry games, bowl games, and any other named game in the site column, bracketed by parentheses. In the discussions about the new templates earlier this year, I thought we reached a consensus that the gamename field would move to the opponent column. However, this has not been implemented in the named parameter scheme of the new templates. A few days ago I asked User:Frietjes to make this change, but she was not sure we had consensus on it. At this point, I think she is correct about the lack of consensus. Some instances of the new templates with unnamed parameters are placing the gamename data in the site column, e.g. 2018 Maryland Terrapins football team, while others have in the opponent column, e.g. 1922 Illinois Fighting Illini football team. I not sure why the template was set up this way. Multiple data points should not be clumped together in one field. Frietjes, is there a dedicated field for gamename in the unnamed parameter scheme? We should confirm a consensus on where the gamename field belongs, opponent or site column. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, when "rivalry" displays inside parentheses, it should not be capitalized. This has been chronically mis-capitalized in the schedule tables and should be fixed. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I continue to believe the rivalry notation belongs logically next to the name of the school with whom the rivalry exists. The rivalry is with the opposing school, not with the city or stadium where the game is played. I, too, thought we had consensus on that, but perhaps it should be put to a vote. Cbl62 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Putting the rivalry notation in the opponent field will really stretch out that column, especially when it has a name and won't simply just say rivalry. Personally I think that would look awful. Maybe if it was under the team name but even that would look weird. But also why are we changing so much stuff now? I don't see why there is a need to change the way it's always been done.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, this is all clutter for the table, overloading it to compensate for the fact that editors generally write little prose, where this would be more appropriate. If it's going to stay, we might as well do a quick vote and move on. It's ugly either way, and it's pretty much a subjective decision among evil choices.—Bagumba (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I support efforts to remove clutter from the table. I would be fine with removing "(rivalry)" notations ... or perhaps reducing it to a single letter designation like "(R)". (In the spirit of de-cluttering, I also support removing game time and TV network on the theory that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, as such non-essential information is better covered in individual game tables. However, many seem entrenched on inclusion of these data points.) Cbl62 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

AD infobox naming conventions

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox college coach#Administrative career (AD unless noted) in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Vote on "rivalry" notation in schedule charts

At Bagumba's suggestion (above), I'm opening this vote on the use of the "rivalry" notation in team season schedules. There are two questions on which input is requested. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Point 1: Keep or delete

Should the "rivalry" locationnotation be kept in the schedule charts?

• Delete in the interest of de-cluttering the tables. Perhaps replace with a single letter designation like "(R)". Keep but convert per PCN's comment below. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, but just as (R) or (r). I am 100% behind converting to this and I think it would vastly de-clutter the table while still keeping that information. Just for an example:

Date	Time	Opponent	Site	TV	Result
December 8	3:00 p.m.	vs. Navy	Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia, PA (119th Army–Navy Game/Commander-in-Chief's Trophy)	CBS
December 8	3:00 p.m.	vs. Navy	Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia, PA (r)	CBS
December 8	3:00 p.m.	vs. Navy (r)	Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia, PA	CBS
Rankings from AP Poll released prior to the game All times are in Eastern time

Using the above example, I would strongly support a change to either the second or third examples. PCN02WPS 01:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I'll add that I would be willing to manually convert articles should we switch to (R) or (r). PCN02WPS 02:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep with just (rivalry). I've marked out my previous comments as I have been thinking about it and have since changed my mind, I agree with Bsuorangecrush, Bagumba, and Corky in that (r) does make it a bit more confusing. PCN02WPS 02:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS and Cbl62: will there be a note at the bottom of the table to reference what (r) means? Corky 03:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be necessary. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to think on this for a while and see the other responses. Right now, I'm not a huge fan of the "(r)"... Corky 03:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Overloading of tables to the detriment of readers just to appease prose-averse editors. "(r)" looks like a TV rerun. We need editorial oversight.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not in favor of delete, but I'm certainly against the "(r)" notation. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep With the full name of the rivalry or with the full word "rivalry." It does not significantly clutter the tables and adds important jump points to rivalry articles. I can't tell you how many rivalries I first learned of due to them being in these schedule charts. Ostealthy (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep with full name or rivlary. R or r would only cause more confusion. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep with the word "rivalry". It's short, simple, and not confusing. Corky 21:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Point 2: If kept, where does it belong?

If kept, should the "rivalry" notation be placed in the "Opponent" or "Site" column?

• Opponent column. A "rivalry" designation pertains to the "opponent", not to the location where the game is played. It is simply more logical for a "rivalry" notation to be placed next to the opponent with which the rivalry exists. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Question: if rivalry notation moves to the "Opponent" column, does notation for bowls and other named games move as well? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Opponent column - I think that rivalry designations should be kept in the opponent column as the rivalry is with the opponent, not the site. However, IMO the bowl games (and other named games, like kickoff games) would belong in the site column, as the game is being played there because it is a bowl game. PCN02WPS 01:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, that may make the most sense, but keep in mind this would necessitate a new field just for rivalries and we'd have to pick though the existing gamename field to pull out the rivalries from the rest (bowls/kickoffs/playoffs/etc). Also, what do we do with something like Red River Showdown, which a rivalry game, but one that is tied to a specific neutral site? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO a rivalry game should remain in the opponent column regardless of whether the game is played at a fixed or neutral site. Again, the "rivalry" is with the opponent, not the site. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, you make a good point that I don't really have an answer for; I'm just basing my solution on what I think would look best, though I think convenience and ease of implementation should take precedence in this situation. I do agree with Cbl that a rivalry designation should belong in the opponent field regardless, however. PCN02WPS 03:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Site column - Although I understand the argument that the rivalry has to do with the opponent and not the site, I feel that nothing should be included in the opponent field. I view the Site column as almost a description of the game details in which would include if it is a rivalry or not. I know that doesn't make too much sense but I don't know how else to explain it. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Opponent for all rivalry games. Corky 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus here is to keep the rivalries in the tables and move them to the opponent column. What are we doing with other named games like bowls, playoffs, and kickoffs? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

[Coming in late] – This is the exact reason why we shouldn't be using unnamed parameters. Since the "rivalry" text is just lumped in with the site, there is no easy way to move around where the Rivalry text is placed. If we're assuming it will be "the text within parenthesis", I guess that's ok, but is error-prone. If it was a named parameter, it would be trivial to change. For this reason, I vote to keep it where it is. I also agree with Bsuorangecrush, the "site" column is more a description of the game details. Maybe change "Site" to "Details". — X96lee15 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

X96lee15, I agree with your general sentiment about unnamed parameters. In this specific case, the unnamed parameter scheme seems to have been set up without a dedicated gamename field and some editor have just be clumping the data into the opponent field—not good. @Frietjes: was there a reason for this? Can this be fixed? Jweiss11 (talk)

So where we stand on this? I don't see I clear a consensus here, which would suggest we revert to the status quo where the gamename field is place in the site column. @Frietjes:, can you please address my question above? The unnamed parameter scheme seems to have been set up without a dedicated gamename field. Was there a reason for this? Can this be fixed? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

it was set up as WYSIWYG with minor styling tweaks. yes, we could have a dedicated gamename column. this, of course, would not prevent people from putting it other places. Frietjes (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we please add the dedicated gamename field? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of rankings table on yearly page

What is the thought consensus on the inclusion of a team's weekly ranking as show in their annual article? Specifically, if the team either was never ranked during the entire season, or if the team received votes at different points in the season - but was never ranked within the top 25. I'm of the opinion that even if not ranked during the season that the table serves as a piece of information to the reader of their non-ranking or "RV" during a particular week (whether or not that piece of information can be inferred from the overall record). I'm looking for an objective, non-partial view. @Bsuorangecrush: please also offer your POV. Barkeep^Chat 18:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about the separate table below the schedule table I would say that it should be included as long as a team received votes. If they never received votes then for the most part consensus has been that there shouldn't be a table. If you mean in the schedule table such as a case of RV Tulsa vs #21 Houston, consensus has definitely been against it in the schedule table.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Receiving votes is not relevant enough for an entire table. The table is to track ranknings, not simply votes. If a team is never ranked then it mostly becomes a table filled with a bunch of NR. There are a lot of teams that may only receive a few votes early in the year then never again. A table with 10+ weeks or so of NR is a waste of space and not historically significant. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO, we should do it one of two ways. Either (1) keep the table if a team receives votes, even if they never get into the top 25, or (2) take off the "RV" aspect entirely and just do the ranking or "NR". PCN02WPS 02:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'm of the opinion that the more objective information available, the better. The difference between receiving votes and not receiving votes is significant, and should be preserved in the wiki pages if it is available. I would support keeping tables that only featured **RV** entries.

Right now, the biggest problems with the ranking tables are that (1) it's hard to easily visualize the difference between Not Ranked and Received Votes, and (2) it's hard to match the Week number with the results in the schedule table. To fix these problems, I would support looking into replacing the NR notation with just a dashed line, and replacing the "week" notation with the date of the poll. Ostealthy (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

AFD Gerry Glasco

While not football related some editors may be interested in a discussion at. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Glasco.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

New rivalry articles

Three new rivalry articles have cropped up in last week or so:

• Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry
• Alabama–Clemson football rivalry
• Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry

Are these legit rivalries? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

My $.02, I don't believe so. You may find something on Alabama-Clemson for the things on modern times. (Also NCAA 2K3 had a glitch where the announcers pretended it was the Iron Bowl, but I digress.) These are just the latest string of SEC Conference match-ups that someone thinks is a rivalry that we've consistently seen little evidence to pass guidelines. (Anybody want to create Texas A&M-Kentucky?)--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, these are not rivalries at all. Speaking as an Arkansas fan, Arkansas-Miss.St. is not a rivalry. It's a SEC matchup with some competitive games recently. It's not presented as a rivalry, never has been. Neither is Alabama-Clemson. IMO, neither is Arkansas-Auburn, but that page continues to live on. If it was my decision, I'd axe that page too. PCN02WPS 02:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Echoing the other two replies, I vote no. Rivalries in college football are built over decades. They are characterized by mutual hatred fostered over generations. They are not defined by a few successive high-stakes matches (Alabama-Clemson) or a mere repetition of games between conference foes. Ostealthy (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In US sports, non-notable rivalry articles seems to come up most often in college football. Would people support some adding some wording in WP:NRIVALRY saying it needs to be more than a source about an upcoming game that throws out the term “rivalry”? There should be coverage that talks about it’s history beyond last year’s result.—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely support that, considering all that's there is a single line of text. PCN02WPS 15:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, my effort from back in 2015 to distill some meaningful standards in this topic area can be found at User:Cbl62/College football series notability. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62: That's a fine start for concrete examples for the WikiProject, but too specific for sports rivalries in general and WP:NRIVALRY. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/76ers–Lakers rivalry which I nominate before (since deleted), these seem like generic talking points: Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games or series, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. Moreover, routine coverage liberally uses the term rivalry to manufacture hype. Currently, the lone substantial work cited is from Fansided, an amateur blog site for fans.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd support something along these lines:

"In order to support a stand-alone article, a rivalry should have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. The type of coverage required is in-depth coverage dealing with the series as a rivalry and not simply WP:ROUTINE game coverage.
Factors that may considered in determining whether a series should be considered a rivalry include:
(i) Geographic proximity. While not necessarily the case, intra-city (e.g., UCLA–USC, Knicks–Nets, Islanders–Rangers), intra-state (e.g., Apple Cup, 49ers–Rams), or border-state series (e.g., Bears–Packers, Michigan–Ohio State), are more likely to be considered rivalries);
(ii) Existence of a trophy (e.g., Little Brown Jug) or an official name for the series (e.g., Freeway Series);
(iii) Competitiveness of the series (a competitive series is more likely to be considered a rivalry);
(iv) Length and frequency of play (series of short duration or which have been played infrequently are less likely to be considered rivalries); and
(v) Prominence of the programs (series played between prominent teams (e.g., Dodgers–Yankees or Celtics–Lakers) are more likely to be considered as notable rivalries)."

Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your points, but I don't think they would be effective as SNGs. I believe SNGs work best when they are either objective points where notability is presumed if one is met, or red flags on notability mistakes. Though well meaning, I have seen on many occasions where people argue notability using WP:NCOLLATH's "Gained national media attention as an individual", which is a weaker, more subjective standard than GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's another two new rivalry articles created by the same editor:

• Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry
• UTEP–UTSA football rivalry

Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There are other pages such as Auburn–Florida football rivalry, Auburn–Tulane football rivalry, Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry and some other debatable pages that I have noticed that doesn't seem to be discussed in this thread. Why don't we discuss those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, we are not discussing those pages because they appear to be rivalries. Though the three you linked are all defunct rivalries in the sense that they are not played annually, that does not make them not rivalries. Auburn and Florida played every year from 1945–2002, Auburn and Tulane played every year from 1921–1952, and Auburn and Tennessee played annually from 1956–1991. On the flip side, Alabama and Clemson have never played for more than four years in a row. Similarly, Louisville and West Virginia played for seven years in a row, from 2005 (when Louisville joined the Big East) to 2011 (West Virginia's last season in the Big East), but never again since then, showing that it was only a conference matchup. Arkansas and Mississippi State have played annually since 1992, the year Arkansas joined the SEC, showing that it's always just been an SEC West divisional game and not necessarily a rivalry. PCN02WPS 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

We got the Arkansas fan perspective and I as a graduate from MSU and fan of the team, I don't consider Arkansas as a rival. I say the main rivals for MSU in football, is Ole Miss, Alabama and LSU in that particular order. There might be some people that might consider the Razorbacks as a rival for their own personal reasons, but its not a main rival of the school. Its just a team that we have to play annually. I consider TAMU as a big rival, but that is just for my own enjoyment. For the UTEP-UTSA rivalry, that is a rivalry that could spark anytime, with the many similarities that both the schools share such as both being apart of the University of Texas System. Its not as big as Texas State rivalry is to UTSA and the Battle of I-10 is to UTEP, but it soon could be. Just like how the North Texas–UTSA football rivalry got heated real fast between the two schools and only played 5 games. --Jpp858 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because a game is played every year for a period of time doesn't mean its a rivalry. I doubt Auburn fans consider Florida a true rival like they do Alabama and Georgia. Same goes with Florida. Florida fans probably wouldn't Auburn on the same level as Georgia, Florida State or even Tennessee. There needs to be a distinction between historical series and rivalries. Ole Miss and Georgia played every year from 1966-2002, but there seems to be hostility towards them as a rivalry. Alabama–Penn State football rivalry is another page that I'm concerned about. Alabama and Penn State don't consider each other rivals. Bama fans wouldn't put Penn State alongside LSU and Auburn, and PSU fans wouldn't put Alabama alongside Michigan State or Ohio State. These are inconsistencies that need to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a Ole Miss–Auburn rivalry page was created yesterday. I think the following articles should be nominated for deletion Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry, Alabama–Clemson football rivalry, and Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry. Many of these "Rivalries" have not been around long enough to be considered notable. CollegeRivalry (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

CollegeRivalry, I agree completely. PCN02WPS 01:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Fellas, can we please refrain from removing any of these rivalry article from team navboxes? As long as a rivalry article (or really any article about a given team) exists, it should be included in the relevant team navboxes. If you don't think something is a legit rivalry, please AfD it. Simply removing it from a navbox just sweeps the problem under the rug. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: the Arkansas instance is my bad, I won't do that again. However, will there be any organized effort to delete some of these non-existant rivalry pages? PCN02WPS 01:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, no worries. I don't think anyone here should he bashful about nominating any of these for deletion. I'll vote delete on any five I've bulleted. @CalebHughes:, I hope you won't be discouraged should any of these articles you've created be deleted. I see you're a pretty new editor. Even though I think these five articles are not notable enough as rivalries to warrant articles, the work you did there was well-written, well-formatted, and well-cited. I hope you'll continue you efforts. Perhaps you want to tackle some Division I program, team season, or coach articles? None of those are in jeopardy of being deleted. You're also right that there are probably a bunch of other iffy rivalry articles that have lingered around a while. Let's identify them and see about nominating them for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Rivarly results table settings

Is there a consensus concerning which version of the Template:Sports rivalry series table should be used in articles? It seems that the "compact" version is used most often, but this is a bad idea, because that configuration leaves out a column for the losing team. This sounds reasonable on the surface - if one team lost, then the other guys must've won, right? Sure, but that setting also hides any mention of the ranking of the losing team. This information is extremely important in the history of a rivalry. Big upsets, top-10 clashes, tales of former glory (or lack thereof) are part of what turns a college football game into a legendary Saturday in the fall.

Hiding rankings in the results table leaves out a big part of what makes a rivalry notable in the first place. Whenever possible and practical, the standard version of the series table should be used, imo. Thoughts? Zeng8r (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the compact version works just fine, if even better. It displays the winner, location, date, and score, which is what you need to know while keeping it simple. I'd say that any notable games ("Big upsets, top-10 clashes, tales of former glory") could be explained in more detail in the sections below the table, complete with game summaries and statistics. PCN02WPS 23:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Could someone link to examples of the two versions so people can review and offer input? Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zeng8r and Cbl62: Of the 201 FBS rivalries involving two teams that I counted on this page, I tallied 198 pages with compact tables, 2 pages with expanded tables, and 1 page without a table. Examples listed below.
Compact: Apple Cup, Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry, Bedlam Series (has attendance as well), Big Game (American football)
Expanded: Backyard Brawl, North Carolina–NC State football rivalry (these are the only two)

I'm aware that these can be changed from compact to expanded by pasting a line of text into the template, but I feel as if the effort of converting 198 pages to expanded version just isn't worth it. PCN02WPS 05:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: I will add that both of the pages that use the expanded format don't actually use the template, but rather use improvised wikitables. The template in compact and expanded form being used exactly as it is supposed to can be seen on the actual template's page (Template:Sports rivalry series table#Examples). PCN02WPS 05:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The improvised version found at Backyard Brawl strikes me as unnecessarily detailed with fields like TV and running series record. However, what User:Zeng8r is advocating is a slightly expanded option as it appeared here for Florida–Georgia football rivalry. The template allows for such an option, and it makes some sense in unusual cases where both teams are frequently ranked. After a budding edit war, Zeng8r attempted to engage the other editor (User:CollegeRivalry) who simply removed the engagement from their talk page without responding. See diff. My 2 cents: I generally prefer the compact version, but in special cases like Florida-Georgia, adding the extra column is helpful for the reasons elucidated by Zeng8r on College Rivalry's talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with Zeng8r when he says "making that version of the table a very poor choice for this rivalry and for any other series in which the teams are regularly ranked". I wouldn't go so far as to say that the compact version is "a very poor choice" in regards to FLA-UGA, but I would say that, in series where both teams are often ranked, I would not have a problem using the version (or something similar) linked in Cbl's comment above. PCN02WPS 21:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone, and thanks @Cbl62: for digging a little deeper and explaining the issue, as I've been traveling and haven't had a chance to log in. I'm not arguing that the slightly expanded results table should be standard for every rivalry article, or that somebody should go in and change the table settings in all 198 (which seems like an awfully large number, imo). But as PCN02WPS said, it makes sense for some articles, like Florida/Georgia. Guess it can be decided on a case-by-case basis. Zeng8r (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of stadium naming protocol

There is a split in usage as to whether to use a hypen or dash in names of stadiums such as Rice-Eccles (currently hyphenated), Jordan-Hare (currently hyphenated), Williams-Brice (currently hyphenated), Bryant–Denny (currently dashed), Ross–Ade (currently dashed), and Vaught–Hemingway (currently dashed). For those interested in such things, the discussion can be found at Talk:Rice-Eccles Stadium#Requested move 7 July 2018. Cbl62 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

IP edits on Miami season articles

We have an IP editor introducing bad formatting to schedule tables at 1968 Miami Hurricanes football team through 1977 Miami Hurricanes football team, reverting edits to remediate and improve these tables, and declaring an unwillingness to collaborate. I've reported this IP address for edit warring, but it may be a good idea for some other folks to keep an eye on these articles since it seems this editor has used more than one IP recently. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Per User:NeilN's suggestion, let's blow this out to a discussion about the style in question. Does anyone think there is merit to repeating wikilinks of stadiums and cities in schedule tables, e.g. 1970 Miami Hurricanes football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should link stadiums or cities other than the first mention in a CFB schedule. Not only is it unnecessary, but it would require thousands of wikilinks to be added to the vast majority of the articles in the project. PCN02WPS 01:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. No reason to have multiple links within the same table. First instance only should be linked. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PCN and Bsu. I think consensus is pretty clear on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think there was much of a debate on this point. Cbl, I see you had a run-in with the editor in question (Drew1830) here a few months back. He and all associated IPs are now blocked for a month. Let's keep an eye on the Miami articles in case he should resurface. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry

@Jweiss11, Cbl62, UCO2009bluejay, Ostealthy, Bagumba, CalebHughes, and CollegeRivalry: I have nominated the Ark-Miss.St. rivalry page for deletion, the link to the discussion can be seen below. I would greatly appreciate everyone's opinion, even if they may differ from mine.

AfD discussion link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry

Thanks all, PCN02WPS 04:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating. I have voted to delete. Going forward we should refrain from arguments in these discussions that rest on some editor's personal testimony as a football fan of one program or another. What matters here are the reliable third-party sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@CalebHughes: A prolific new editor has created seven[2] of these new "rivalry" article all of which seem to fail WP:GNG at a glance. A bulk AfD (WP:MULTIAFD) seem appropriate. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be willing to bulk AfD these within the next day or so if the community thanks that would be appropriate. PCN02WPS 19:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional AfDs are appropriate, but I oppose a bulk or mass AfDs in such cases. Each claimed rivalry involves very different histories, facts and circumstances and needs to evaluated on its own merit. These articles cannot and should not be evaluated "at a glance", as suggested above. Bulk or mass AfDs discourage the separate evaluation of each case on its merits. WP:MULTIAFD does not apply here, as there is not (a) a "group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles", (b) a "group of hoax articles by the same editor", (c) a "group of spam articles by the same editor", or (d) a "series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products". MULTIAFD further states: "For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as 'should wikipedia include this type of article'. Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it." Cbl62 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• As just one example, Alabama–Clemson involves very different circumstances. That series has a history dating to 1900, has decided or helped decide the national championship each of the past three seasons, and has a history of multiple high profile meetings, including 2017 (#1 vs #4), 2016 (#1 vs. #2), 2015 (#1 vs. #2), 2008 (#9 vs. #24). There is also a considerable body of coverage now referring to this as a rivalry. E.g., here, here, and here. Not sure which way I would vote until digging in to do some fairly involved research, but it seems comparable to Alabama-Penn State that was kept in an earlier AfD discussion here. By bundling articles like this with others that have little in common, we do a disservice to the process and act counter to WP:MULTIAFD. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• As a second example, UTEP–UTSA might properly be deleted given its recent vintage, but it involves a distinct issue as to whether a new or developing rivalry should have a stand-alone article. (Compare, e.g., Battle Line Rivalry.) There is coverage talking about UTEP–UTSA as such a rivalry. E.g., here, here, here, here, and here. Again, I don't know which way I would vote without digging deeper, but there is a reasonable discussion to be had here, and bundling it with 5 other, largely dissimilar rivalries tends to hamper and limit the analysis/discussion of each article's merits. Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry

I want to let everyone know, I have nominated Georgia–Ole Miss rivalry page for deletion. 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry