Talk:2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl

Visitor Record (& Home Record)

The overall wins-losses (-ties if applicable) of the Visitor (or Home) team playing in the game, prior to the start of the game. Not the record after the game. Bband11th (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

But why? That doesn't make any sense to me. Any boxscore for the game will show the records after the game. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's the standard. Bband11th (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a bad standard. I'm going to bring it up at WP:CFB. — X96lee15 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The reason is because this is an encyclopedia meant to express history as it is written. In that regard someone visiting this page would look at the page and be able to note the records of the teams on the day that they played. In other words if you update the records after the game is over on THIS particular page it would appear that is what the teams record was on the day of the game, if that makes sense.Tigerman81 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I take it as opposite. The Infobox to me is the boxscore. When I look at the records, I see them as after the game...but I'll bring this discussion up at WPCFB. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Odds

• Shown "by" number of points in previous years, not "-" minus points. It makes no sense. Newspapers show by "," Bband11th (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways. Both make sense. — X96lee15 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• BBand11th, the STANDARD way for noting college football odds lines is "-" for favorites. Please see article Sports betting for reference and stop reverting correctly notated edits. Not only that but this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.Tigerman81 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked the article history to find out which version was placed in the article first, and was mistaken on my edit summary. In fact, the first inclusion of the odds was "Ohio -3" as seen here. Later there was an edit war between "Ohio -3" and "Ohio, 3" before using "by" (an accepted way). Since "Ohio by 3" came later, if we're going on the "original" as far as the accepted ways (using the minus sign or "by"), then "Ohio –3" would be correct. In articles where "by" was used first, that would be the one that stays until there is some sort of consensus is reached. When there are multiple acceptable ways to display something and no consensus exists for a preference, the general rule is to default to whichever was there first. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• See the template for correct use. 99.90.144.184 (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Agree 100%. 64.183.42.64 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Point spreads on college football games

This RfC pertains to this article along with: 2009 St. Petersburg Bowl‎, 2009 Texas Bowl‎ and 2010 Rose Bowl‎.

The issue is the representation of the Vegas line in the infobox for various college football bowl games. The discussion occurred here where an consensus could not be reached. Since it's a stylistic thing, I think it should revert to what the first representation was (per of articles this) (which is "Team A -X" as opposed to "Team A by X") This issue has been going on for months now and I'm getting tired of engaging. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this is purely a stylistic thing, I think whatever was first is the best way to go; that is why I have not gone through every bowl article and changed it to my preference, which is using the "-" sign. I have reverted several on this page because I think the repeated change to "by" has been done en masse without any type of consensus and I personally think the main editor who has repeatedly changed it to "by" is now just doing it to be difficult and is hopeful those of us who disagree simply lose interest (and that editor has gone through and changed multiple articles to his preference even though no consensus was reached on the preferred style). If "by" was there first, then that's what should stay. If "-" was there first, that should stay; end of discussion. This constant battle, which can easily be solved by checking the article's history, is unnecessary. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard and template have been in use for years. That would be the "first" is the best way. 71.140.103.55 (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The way a template does something is not a "standard" since templates are not always put through any kind of consensus when they are created. This specific example was discussed and no consensus was reached. I have seen consistent use of both ways in newspapers, but in reality, that isn't the issue. The issue is the constant reversion and mass changes to articles when there is no consensus on a particular style. "First" is in reference to how it was placed in the article itself, not the template. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Everything is done in uniformity, including wordings, dots, and dashes. Just look at the mass changes. Except in this case, you want to change from what was in use for years. The only one who has been making the changes is X69lee15 who also has said that he doesn't care either way. Why is he doing it? Hate. That's what. Nobody cares about it when the game is over. It only shows that the so called experts are either wrong or right about a game. If template is not a standard, why indeed have it. Let people do what every which way they wanted. By is the best way to express the favorite team. Even a child can understand which team is expected to win and by the number of points. It has nothing to do with betting. 64.183.42.63 (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and character judgments and stick with the subject. Templates are like anything on Wikipedia: anyone can create them (I've created several templates myself) and set the documentation. Doing so does not mandate any kind of standard notation nor prevent future changes or corrections. Like I said, the issue was discussed later (normal procedure) and no consensus could be reached (both ways are used quite extensively in reliable sources), which begs the question why the mass changes were made to begin with. And as far as I know, point spreads have everything to do with betting. It's not just some person deciding who is the better team and guessing how many points they'll win by. That's why you'll see things like a 2.5 point spread in some games (so "by 2.5" wouldn't make any sense). Again, both ways are acceptable and used so why does one have to be THE definite one? --JonRidinger (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And so it continues... what does it take to get an opinion from a someone versed in Wikipedia policy? This is a pretty cut-and-dry case I believe. What's the next step after RFC? — X96lee15 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As the reviewing admin on the recent edit warring aspect of this dispute, I would like to say right here and now that constant reverting is definitely not the way to go—no matter what you decide. Although I've blocked Bband11th (talk · contribs) for ignoring both edit war warnings as well as this RfC (then proceeding to edit war), let it not be assumed that he/she is the only party in the wrong. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are concerned, the revert warring has to stop—period. On one page I checked, for example, this has been going on since April, and has dominated the Help:Page history to the point of possibly disrupting productive changes to the pages in question.

Thus, by all means, discuss and figure it out. Feel free to use our dispute resolution process as a good reference for what to do in determining consensus. Please do involve Bband11th (talk · contribs) in these discussions as an equal and welcome party with opinions of his/her own, but during the process, above all, I implore you to avoid edit warring or the pages in question might, among other things, protected from editing by all editors during the course of the content dispute, which would obviously impede productive changes in other aspects of the article.

--slakr^\ talk / 01:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I've created backlinks to this discussion on the talk pages of the other articles in question to help centralize the discussion. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have always seen that when no consensus is reached, the best way was to simply leave it as originally was (which is what I and others have been advocating) or whatever "approved" format was there first, especially in cases so trivial as this. Both ways have plenty of examples (I just saw one yesterday that gave the spread as "minus 8 or 8.5" example). I already supplied the diff that this was originally put into the article at "Ohio -3" and that's where it should stay. If an article had "by" first, then that's where it should stay. The reason I'm sticking with this is because I don't like seeing editors simply "wearing" another down (I've seen too many good editors lost that way). Once it was clear that there was no consensus on which format to use, there should've been no mass changes and in articles where there was a dispute, a simple trip to the article history can solve the problem. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Standard has been established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.251.100 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)