Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

CfD: Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs --> Category:Amherst Mammoths

I have proposed that Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs and its subcategories be renamed. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This CfD is now over a month old with unanimous support for the move, but hasn't been closed. Do we have an admin here who can close it? Jweiss11 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Kansas State–Nebraska football rivalry

Is Kansas State–Nebraska football rivalry a rivalry worthy of an article? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Kansas–Nebraska football rivalry seems a little questionable too. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Both worthy of deletion, in my opinion. A series being long-standing is not by itself reason for notability. Nebraska dominated both series, and there is little history of notable games or animosity between the schools. Ostealthy (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior to its interruption in 2011, the Kansas–Nebraska football rivalry was "the longest continually played series in NCAA Division I-A." See here and here. One of the interesting points in the rivalry's history is that the 1906 game reportedly gave birth to the term "gridiron" as vertical yard lines were for the first time painted onto the field. See here at p. 22. Also, Fielding H. Yost left Nebraska after the 1898 season to coach for the rival Jayhawks in 1899. Yost proceeded to lead the 1899 Kansas team to an undefeated season, including a victory over Nebraska. Yes, the rivalry was one-sided for much of its history, but it was once one of the premiere rivalries in the Midwest. See, e.g., here and here. From 1892 to 1909, each team won eight games. Later, during the quarter century from 1944 to 1968, Nebraska won 13 games to 12 for Kansas. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Kansas State-Nebraska rivalry held 89 straight games from 1922 to 2010 and the teams met a total of 95 times so far, going back to 1911. That doesn't meet the "100-game-threshold" for listing in List of most played college football rivalries in NCAA Division I but it's close. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be a notable rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Future and Current class assessments

Are the Future and Current assessment classes for this project of any use to anyone here? See Category:College football articles by quality. Articles created in the run-up to a new season get assessed as Future-class upon creation and most tend to never get changed to Current-class one the season starts. Then after the season is over, most of these all remain as Future or Current class until someone (usually me) rerates them (mostly as Stubs) on the quality scale months later. It's a lot of administrative work that doesn't seem to be of use to anyone here. Should we eliminate the Future and Current assessment classes? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Eliminate it. I've never seen anyone offer a useful reason for the admin overhead.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, what's the process for eliminating an assessment class? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it can be zapped from Template:WikiProject College football/class.—Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think it was one of those things that looked like a good idea at the time, but in practice has become cumbersome.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, thanks for pointing me there. I zapped them. All Future-class article should no be unassessed. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@CAWylie:: FYI. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11:You're welcome. I'm doing it for basketball articles too. Some of their "currents" go back a few years. — Wyliepedia 02:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I was going to suggest WikiProject College Basketball do the same. Thanks again. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Update on new CFB schedule templates

The new CFB schedule templates (Template:CFB schedule and (Template:CFB schedule entry) are now transcluded on about 500 articles. The old templates (Template:CFB Schedule Start, Template:CFB Schedule Entry, and Template:CFB Schedule End) are still translcuded on over 11,000 articles and are being used in virtually all of the new articles that continue to pour in daily. @Cbl62: and @Frietjes: do we have a plan to transition all of the articles in question to the new templates so that we can keep things streamlined and unforked and deprecate/delete the old templates? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, how and when does the conversion of the 11,000+ articles with the old templates happen? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

you could make a WP:BOTREQ. to use the conversion module you (1) add {{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}}. (2) press show preview and compare the output to make sure nothing went wrong. (3) press save. if I were to write a bot to do this task, I wouldn't have the bot use this method, since there are safer ways for a bot to do the conversion. Frietjes (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I just noticed this new template. Have you guys had a thorough discussion about the use of unnamed parameters? I have a feeling that's going to cause a ton of issues. If you enter the data in the wrong order, it can't catch that, right? And what if we want to add a new column. We'd have to put that data at the end, or have to modify every article that uses the template. I agree that the schedule template could use a lot of improvements, but I think named parameters would be the way to go. Also, it doesn't look like you can put each unnamed parameter on a single line? To me, that's the best way to make an article readable.

Are there any other templates that use unnamed parameters exclusively like this one does? If this is the first one that uses this many, I'm nervous that this isn't the way to go.

I know it's annoying I'm chiming in with complaints, especially if you have everything resolved already. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we had an extended discussion concerning the pluses and minuses of both named and unnamed parameters. The result was a compromise that provides dual syntax, so that those uncomfortable with unnamed parameters can use the version with named parameters. The unnamed parameters version allows for much more rapid creation of schedule charts and is similar to the format used for other major sports. See NFL, MLB, and NHL versions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Cbl. You have alleviated my concerns :) — X96lee15 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my position—held throughout the discussion on this topic in recent months—that the use of unnamed parameters is probably short-sighted, offering ease-of-use for some editors at the expense of 1) long-term sustainability and flexibility and 2) simplicity of understanding as new editors come to use the templates. It would be nice if we could have an automated process to convertedthe instances of unnamed parameters to named parameters. The more paramount concern at the movement ought to be converting the old templates to the new templates (with named parameters!) and deprecating the old templates. Frietjes seems to suggest she has an automated process for this, but it remains unclear how this will work or who will run that process. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That the unnamed parameters version has been successfully rolled out into hundreds of articles belies any concerns expressed about sustainability, flexibility, or simplicity. IMO it works beautifully and has already saved hundreds of hours of manpower. Thanks to User:Frietjes for their efforts in making the new template available with dual syntax. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, Cbl62. How can you tersely put down concerns about sustainability and flexibility when the future hasn't happened yet? Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in precisely the situation I feared—with a standing forking of the templates. This need to be resolved. @Frietjes: can you please respond substantively to my questions about the conversion of the old templates? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have used my power of precognition to examine the schedule charts many years in the future ... there is nothing to worry about. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tom Cruise told me you're wrong! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes

I have nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ESPY Award navbox

FYI

There is a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Template:ESPY Best Male College Athlete for an ESPY Award frequently won by college football players.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Season articles

We now have season articles for every historical season for every program in the Big 10, Pac 12, SEC, and Big 12. The only Power Five programs that do not have a complete run of season articles are from the ACC: Boston College; Louisville; North Carolina; NC State; Syracuse; and Virginia. It would be nice to have full coverage for Power Fives before the 2018 season starts. Cbl62 (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Module for infobox college coach

I noticed that some college coaches that later entered politics such as Tom Osborne, has two navboxes for both politics and political service. In regards to a former governor of Kansas Andrew Frank Schoeppel, who coached collegiate football, I tried to create a meshed navbox for the latter like we do other figures such as Mark Harmon, and Bill Bradley. For some reason I couldn't get it to work. Can anybody help with this?--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay: {{Infobox college coach}} needed the option to embed in order for it to work. I have updated Osborne's article to reflect the changes. Corky 23:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD: T. L. Anthony

T. L. Anthony as been nominated for deletion. Anthony was the head football coach at Atlantic Christian and played at Georgia, where he was a member of the national champion 1920 Georgia Bulldogs football team and a selection to the 1921 College Football All-Southern Team. Can we beef this one up and perhaps save it? @MisterCake:? @Cbl62:? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

More Louisiana–Lafayette nonsense

I don't want to say "I told you so," but I knew this was going to happen if we went along with this POV-pushing scheme. See Tony Robichaux for an example of what I'm talking about, "Louisiana" is now anachronistically being applied on all seasons dating all the way back to the year 2000. This is going to effect any and all articles dealing with the history of University of Louisiana at Lafayette athletics, including, but not limited to; program pages, team season articles, bio articles for coaches and players, etc. In a perfect world, I would like to believe that all of the folks who voted with the PR machine in favor of moving the article would volunteer for cleanup duty, but I'm not that naive. Still I'd like to raise the issue here in hopes of getting some eyeballs on these articles; if past history is any indication, this will be a recurring issue that will drag on for years into the future. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, this seems like a pretty isolated incident unless you have more examples. And I kinda don't see a problem with it. Having different names for the same school in record tables could cause confusion, so maybe it's best to retroactively apply the current name. Details can be explained in prose. Lizard (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Billcasey905 fixed the Robichaux example. If there are others, I'd be happy to help. It's my view that team naming, whether in tables or text, should follow the naming convention that was in force at the time of the events being reported. See, e.g., Ralph H. Young (referring to his program as "Michigan Agricultural" until 1924, then "Michigan State" after name change) and Jim Lookabaugh (Oklahoma A&M, not Oklahoma State). Cbl62 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Lizard, it's certainly not best to "retroactively apply the current name". Cbl62 is correct that we shoud use "he naming convention that was in force at the time of the events being reported". Any needed detail about name changes can be clarified in prose in a footnote. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

With respect to Robichaux, though - is that really the way to go? three different school names in one entry? I'd argue that these will all come out in the record table anyway, is including all of the historical names needed in the infobox too? I have no issue with applying the retro school name if it was current at the time, but am questioning those relatively few exceptions where a coach tenure cuts across two or more names. I guess I don't see the issue with just using "Louisiana" for Robichaux and see it as preferable to three names. Rikster2 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Portal:College football

A proposal has been made to delete Portal:College football (and all other portals) at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals. What are folks views on the college football portal? It doesn't appear to be maintained or updated on any regular basis. Do folks think it is useful? Assuming the RfC does not succeed, would anyone want to volunteer to update and maintain it? Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Loyola Ramblers display name

You are invited to join a discussion around potential changes to this school's athletic display name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Loyola Ramblers display name. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes

I recently nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. The discussion, which you can view at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3, was unfortunately closed with no consensus. If I nominate this again, do I have support to delete? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)