Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College football (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Section headings in team season articles[edit]

The vast majority of season articles that have been expanded with game-by-game details have the relevant section titled either "Game summaries" or "Game notes". In an effort to bring some uniformity to these articles, a few weeks ago I discussed with BU Rob13 the idea of having a bot run through all of the team season articles and replace all instances of "Game notes" with "Game summaries". I think "Game summaries" is preferable because the word "notes" suggests something about a footnote or addendum, and these sections contain main body content of their articles. Would anyone have an objection to changing all instances of "Game notes" to "Game summaries"? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm with ya. Summaries just sounds better, more encyclopedic. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes do that. Lizard (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: looks like we have support and no objections. Can you move forward with this when you have a chance? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: Can you provide me with the category that all team season articles are in? ~ Rob13Talk 23:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Rob, it's all the sub-categories of Category:College football seasons by team. We want to look for all section headers titled "Game notes", "Game Notes", and "Game Summaries" and replace them with "Game summaries. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll do this semi-auto, likely during the weekend. ~ Rob13Talk 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:, will you have a chance to do this in the near future? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Working on it now. ~ Rob13Talk 22:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again)[edit]

Since I posted about this in a year ago (and had posted it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball as well with the discussion held there by another user's choice), a certain user (Jweiss11) has decided that there is no consensus (which is clearly wrong.) I had posted the discussion at the College Basketball WikiProject an hour after the College football post. That user decided to hold the discussion there. The post read:

Something needs to be done with navigation boxes like in the William McAvoy article. There is simply way too many to not be grouped together. Personally, I'd like to see them grouped like in this diff. No color is needed since the coaches are at various schools. I don't care if you want to leave the default name Links to related articles as the title or something like Name coaching positions, etc. This article is another example.

During the discussionUsers had three options:

  1. Group the navboxes all together;
  2. Group the navboxes separately;
  3. do not group the navboxes at all; or
  4. a different option.

Out of the participants (Me, @Jweiss11, Sphilbrick, Bagumba, Rikster2, UCO2009bluejay, Lizard the Wizard, MisterCake, Jrcla2, and Littlekelv:), the consensus was clear (for those who !voted) – group them all together (5–1). Jrcla2 expressed he didn't "feel strongly about this but we may as well just lump everything together so keep pages cleaner." Jweiss expressed, and the user who keeps going against consensus, he's in favor of "Leaving all positional navboxes ungrouped and putting all championships, awards, and honors navboxes in one collapsed grouping." Something Rikster2 said – and I happen to agree with – is "I just fail to see why coach tenure navboxes are necessarily more important than others and am tired of the overloaded navboxes of the Larry Brown's and Mysterious Walker's of the world. At the end of the day, coach tenures should be in the infobox anyway so it isn't like the information is being hidden - it is still available on quick scan." After the consensus, edits were made to reflect it, but Jweiss keeps reverting. I'm tired of it and would like others to jump in to voice their opinions. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, this discussion effects all sports WikiProjects in North America. The consensus gathered at the end of the RFC will effect articles in those notified (mentioned below). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

This is the discussion. Once you have an opinion, please record it in the Survey section below. If you've recorded it in this section, please add another into the survey section. Thanks.

  • Group them but under two separate sub-groupings: "Coaching navboxes" and "Awards and honors" Jrcla2 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Group them - But I agree with Jrcla above - one group for coaching/administrative positions (because there are AD boxes too) and "awards and honors" Rikster2 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
We need to have this discussion in a way that it covers at least all American college sports, MLB, NBA, NFL, CFL. Otherwise it cannot be consistent. We also need to determine exact language of the coaching/administrative position grouping and a rule for when it is invoked, i.e minimum number of navboxes needed to invoke it. Also, what about QB navboxes, e.g. Jim Harbaugh? Do we have one grouping for all positions held? Finally, I'm happy to explain why I think coaching/administrative position navboxes are more important that championship or award / honors navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
WikiProjects NBA, Baseball, NFL, CFL, Sports, and College basketball have been notified. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, the consensus we need to build is one that explicitly governs all those projects / subject areas. It should be clarified that the discussion / RFC applies to all North American sports tenure navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It's great if other multiple projects choose to be consistent. However, it is not necessary. Otherwise, we wouldn't be excluding NHL here. Barring a joint consensus, there was already a clear one for college basketball at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_6#Navigation_boxes_in_coaches_articles.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If consistency were that important, football wouldn't have something like four different infoboxes going. As for starting quarterback templates, my first suggestion would be that you guy evaluate if they are necessary - I personally think they are overkill but it's not my call. If kept, I think they should be grouped with awards and a more encompassing name for the group should be created (opening day starter templates for baseball are similar). Last, I think there already is a rule (perhaps it is informal, but we could make it more firm) that four navboxes or more should be nested. I think this is still a good number, though 4 navboxes could become two instead of one if we use separate groupings. Rikster2 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Group them all together (Same as my !vote from previous discussion) This is clean, and simplest to implement. I'm not sold on idea of needing overhead of two groupings (but it would be better than doing nothing at all).—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Rikster, consistency is that important. If you want to merge some of those football infoboxes, go for it. As long as the quarterback navboxes exist, they need to be integrated into this new navbox grouping solution. If you think they should be deleted, go for it. Bagumba, the reason I've excluded the NHL here is that coach navboxes doesn't exist for the NHL. They have succession boxes instead. There are a couple coach navboxes for college hockey; see Category:American college ice hockey coach navigational boxes. Moreover, WikiProject Ice Hockey has historically be antagonistic toward collaborating with related WikiProjects and merging their standards. There may have been a consensus for college basketball, but it was inherently flawed because no one addressed the problem of cases where college basketball coach navboxes exist along side other coach navboxes, which is a vast portion of all cases, given the number of college basketball coaches who coached in the NBA or coached other college sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not my place to tell the football project(s) how to handle their business. I have, however, been someone who has pushed for (and done a lot of the conversion work) for infobox integration for basketball and fought "starting point guard" navboxes when they came up. There will be no push back about NBA and college coach navboxes being nested - separating them outside a nest isn't something our project feels strongly about. Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging regular editors in these topics areas for comment: @Pvmoutside:, @X96lee15:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Paulmcdonald:, @UCO2009bluejay:, @JohnInDC:, @Ejgreen77:, @WikiOriginal-9:, @MisterCake:, @UW Dawgs:, @Bsuorangecrush:, @Yankees10:, @Eagles247:, @Dissident93:, @Cbl62:.

  • Comment – We need a final consensus before we start discussing names, etc. Once we have a consensus, then we can worry about it. Until then, let's just wait. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Please record your !vote below. Thanks.

  • Group them, but group them separately from "awards and honors." Lizard (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Group em together Bot summoned per Corkythehornetfan. And a separte heading for Survey and Listed Discussion should be implemented. L3X1 (distant write) 16:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Group them, but group them separately from "awards and honors." Rikster2 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: if consensus moves in favor of separate grouping for 1) tenure navboxes and 2) championships/awards/honors navboxes, we are going to have to figure out how exactly that it works, i.e. at what number of navboxes is the grouping invoked and how does the naming scheme work. For example, in the case of Tuss McLaughry, the five tenure navboxes would be grouped and then the one award navbox would be left ungrouped? Similarly, if consensus moves in favor of one grouping for all the navboxes, we need to figure out the naming for that and how things are ordered within the new grouping. We must figure out all those details before anyone runs off and implements something. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I've always just done it based on judgement. If it looks like a lot of navboxes, I group them. Lizard (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Not going to fly. We need objective rules. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Then I say group them once they hit 4. Four coaching gigs would be grouped, three "awards and honors" would be ungrouped, etc. And I think we should also either decide what constitutes "awards and honors," or start naming that group something else. Because I wouldn't consider "Chicago Bears 1992 draft selection" to be an award nor an honor yet these navboxes get thrown in with that group. Lizard (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we need a better name for this "awards and honors" grouping. Things like Template:NFL passing touchdown leaders aren't really an award or an honor either. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Jweiss, let's just determine consensus then determine the guidelines (if there is a change) before enacting anything. That's always worked in the past and I have no doubt we can figure it out this time. Rikster2 (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Group them all together Personally don't think it's worth having two {{Navboxes}} groupings—just sort them within the single navbox grouping—but anything is better than current practice of not collapsing at all.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Group them, in the way Jrcla2 suggested. That appears to be the most WP:Common sense approach. While a profusion of infoboxes are clearly unhelpful, it's equally clear (to experienced editors/readers, anyway) that a humongous, monolithic infobox that is excessively dense and unorganized is also "reader-hateful".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Just making sure you're aware we're discussing navboxes, not infoboxes. Lizard (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I did get confused (trying to do too many RfC in multiple windows after a bit of a wikibreak), but the exact same principle applies.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: You might have been confused by {{Navboxes}}, which merely creates a collapsible container for multiple navboxes; it does not merge them into a monolithic one, per se.—Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I confused myself about one thing, not everything. Not everyone agrees that's a good approach. A huge pileup of navboxes at the end of the article provides very little actual utility, and collapse-boxing it doesn't fix that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Results, further discussion[edit]

Bagumba, Lizard the Wizard, Jweiss11, Jrcla2, Rikster2, L3X1, and others: I've waited 7 days since the RFC, so now it's time to move on. It looks like the result is to group them separately. Now let's talk about how we are going to label them. In my personal opinion, the following are my suggestions for naming conventions, but I am open to anything.

  1. Separately – Career tenures (group 1), Career highlights (group 2)
  2. Separately – Administrative, coaching, and playing careers (group 1), Administrative, coaching, and player highlights (group 2)

For the second (2) option, we would only include the group the awards/honors/highlights were in (i.e. if they have player & coaching awards, we'd leave out Administrative). Thoughts? If after one (1) week no one has commented, then I will go ahead and will go ahead and start grouping with the two options above. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I still maintain to group them inside a single {{Navboxes}}. Less overhead, can still be sorted as we see fit, and avoids coming up with some new cryptic header for each grouping.—Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Bagumba: either way, we are going to need a label to be consistent throughout the articles. If we group them all together, do we just leave the automatic label "Links to related articles", for do we use a different label. This is what this section is about. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep it simple. The default of "Link to related articles" is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Separately – Career tenures (group 1), Career highlights (group 2) Looks ok. L3X1 (distant write) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Separately – Career tenures (group 1), Career highlights (group 2) is fine (though I don't oppose grouping together if that is majority view). Things like draft pick templates and starting QB templates can qualify as "highlights." Rikster2 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bagumba; had a change of heart. Otherwise the two section names suggested are fine with me. Lizard (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you all for the responses. It would be really nice if Jweiss11, who is the main critic here, would give his opinion. I just don't want reverts to start when the outcome is applied. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Corky, you know my opinion is that we keep the status quo with the tenure navboxes ungrouped, but it surely looks like consensus is for a grouping of some sort. As for which way we group them, I'm not sure I have a preference. I just want to be sure that whatever it is, all the permutations are considered and all the details are hammered before anyone goes and deploys anything. Consistency is the key here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11, Bagumba, Rikster2, Cbl62, and Lizard the Wizard: and others:
It looks like from those who have commented above for a final survey, we have a majority of grouping together (3 to 2; make it 4 if you count me, 5 if you count Rikster2's side note) and we keep the default title Links to related articles. Is it safe to implement this now? I think we've had all the discussion that all are willing to participate in. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Corky, I think the consensus is indeed for the navboxes altogether in one grouping, but have we decided how the navboxes will be ordered within that one grouping? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No, but honestly I don't think we'll get much participation. I'm willing to work with you on this... how do you suppose we order it? We could go off of the minority above (option 1)? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Tenures then highlights seems fine. That's the way it currently is, no? So the only work is to just lump it all inside a {{Navboxes}}.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, tenures then highlights. Lizard (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. It's much simpler to group them all together and continue to order them the way they have always been ordered then to completely re-order them and have deal with those who will still want to order them the way they currently are. I think the main concern for the ordering above if we were going to group them into 2 separate navboxes. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Several Texas Longhorns football individual games nominated for deletion[edit]

IFAF World Cup roster navboxes[edit]

I have nominated three IFAF World Championship roster navboxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse - out of business[edit]

I tried again this morning to access the College Football Data Warehouse web site. There is now a notice from Network Solutions stating that "cfbdatawarehouse.com expired on 03/24/2017 and is pending renewal or deletion." Accordingly, this projects numerous links to the site would now appear to be dead links. Ugh. Cbl62 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We're long overdue for an alternative. Lizard (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggestions for alternatives: SR/College Football covers most of the things for which we have traditionally used CFDW. For the last couple of years, I've been using SR/College Football whenever possible. In most of the instances that are not covered by SR/College Football, I recommend using media guides, which are available on-line for most FBS programs. A third resource is the "ESPN College Football Encyclopedia"; I purchased a hard copy myself a couple years ago, and they are available for just $3.99 (shipping included) on-line. See here. Another good research for Big Ten programs is ESPN's Big Ten Football Encyclopedia which can be purchased even cheaper. See here. While it's not one I have, ESPN's Southeastern Conference Football Encyclopedia can be purchased for the low, low sum of only $3.35 (shipping included). See here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
My only gripe with ESPN's College Football Encyclopedia is its claim that the North Texas Mean Green was named in honor of Mean Joe Greene, which is almost certainly false. Perhaps that's the only error in the book, I don't know. But it's enough to make me question the reliability of the rest of the book. Lizard (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget to use webarchive. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
One of the problems is the usage of automated links to CFDW in Template:CFBCR. Unless the template can be programmed to automatically link to an old version of the site using webarchive, the template itself should probably be 86'd and removed from the hundreds of articles that currently use it. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is a website that is very comprehensive dating back to 1945, and also indicates who is a conference opponent.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems the College Football Data Warehouse is indeed out of business for good. Therefore Template:CFBCR should be deleted. There's also an associated Wikidata element. I don't know much about Wikidata, but perhaps that should be deleted as well? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A ton of minor college football awards navboxes at TfD[edit]

In an attempt to reduce our ever-expanding navbox cruft, I've placed 14 minor college football awards navboxes at TfD. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 15. Lizard (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Update to Template:CFB Yearly Record[edit]

I don't have any idea how to do this, but can we update the yearly record template found on head coaches' pages? My problem with it is the BCS bowl part. Even though the BCS has been done for four years, the Bowl Alliance for 20, and the Bowl Coalition for 23, it's still shown on these templates.

Example: Tom Herman (American football)#Head coaching record

Tom Herman of Texas has only been a head coach since 2015, yet the symbol next to the Peach Bowl on his yearly record table says that it "indicates Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, BCS, or CFP / New Years' Six bowl". Herman is never going to coach a team in a Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, or BCS bowl.

It's the same for old coaches too. Tom Osborne never had the opportunity to coach in a BCS or CFP/New Years' Six bowl. John Blake never had the opportunity to coach in a Bowl Coalition or CFP/New Years' Six bowl. Is there anyway we can adjust this template so that only the systems that were in place when a particular coach was coaching are shown? Kobra98 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kobra98: Maybe. You'd probably be better served asking the smart people who normally deal with template editing. Lizard (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
And who are those people? Kobra98 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Frietjes is probably your best bet. Lizard (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Kobra98, this is certainly doable, but how exactly would you want this to work? Four separate indicators for 1) Bowl Coalition, 2) Bowl Alliance, 3) BCS, and 4) CFP / New Years' Six bowl? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Jweiss11, Lizard the Wizard, Kobra98, the problem is that currently |bcs=no means hide all bowl footnotes. this is a bad name for the parameter. instead it should be |bowls=no. I added some tracking. If we change this parameter from |bcs=no to |bowls=no, then going forward we have two options, (1) as Jweiss11 suggests with four different parameters, or (2) have it automatic based on some date range, like |year_start= and |year_end=. of course, this would be in addition to the ability to entirely turn it off with just |bowls=no. Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I vote option 2. Kobra98 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

L'il help?[edit]

Was updating Template:Northwestern Eagles football coach navbox and the new coach is "Matt Moore." I have no idea how you guys DAB when their are multiples with the same name. Here is a link about his hiring. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Matt Moore (American football coach) I'd imagine. Lizard (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rikster2: See Bill Walsh (American football coach) (although this should arguably be the primary topic). Lizard (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thanks Rikster2 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Lizard, I'd support that move of Bill Walsh (American football coach) to a primary topic. Perhaps you want to initiate that? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The only reason I haven't tried yet is because my two previous attempts to rename an American football subject to the primary topic—Jim Taylor (American football) and Bruce Matthews (American football)—didn't go as planned. I'm not convinced Bill Walsh has a better chance than those two. Lizard (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like most if not all of the "oppose" voters are British. There is a segment of British Wikipedians who have a lot of trouble understanding that topics that aren't at all prevalent in the U.K. are huge in the US. Next time one gives you guff you should suggest that Bobby Moore should be a DAB page because there are too many people of that name, as was argued in the Jim Taylor case. I'd give it a shot and argue it out. Rikster2 (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies in which members of this WikiProject maybe interested in. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg

Welcome to Women in Red's
May 2017 worldwide online editathon.
Participation is welcome in any language.

Test cricket - women - 1935.jpg

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Maps on college football season articles[edit]

User:Jhn31 has added maps to a number of college football season articles, like 1950 college football season, to depict the locations of participating teams. Jhn31, User:Lizard the Wizard, and I have discussed this a bit on Jhn31's talk page here. What are everyone's thoughts about these maps? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For a little background, I was inspired by similar maps on international soccer, basketball, hockey pages (for example 2016–17 Premier League, 2016–17 Russian Premier League, 2017 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, etc.). Those leagues don't have the same alignments from year to year, unlike American pro sports, so the map is a quick visual way to show who participated that year. I found that similar to college football. The map quickly shows who was in what conference each year, thanks to the color coding, which conveys the information a lot more efficiently than the standings tables. The only drawback is the map has to be pretty big to spread out enough to fit all the teams, but I don't think it's too wide - at least the maps have a section to themselves, unlike in this example here. Jhn31 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I may be in the minority but I support these maps. I believe that maps indicating where these teams are illustrates the geographic scope of college football. However, I think placement of these maps should be worked out. Where it is now isn't that objectionable but I'm not fully sure either. In reference to the discussion on his page, I wonder if there is a list of who participated in the University Division of college football in a given year, not necessarily based upon a site with questionable arbitrarily declares a major school (the fact that you had that discussion indicates it is iffy).UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Support, but where's Hawaii? Kobra98 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
There are arrows pointing to Hawaii, keep in mind the program was D-II until 1974.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I oppose these maps. These season articles are generally in bad shape and these maps aren't helping. Keep in mind that prior to 1956, the NCAA had no divisions. All teams, even little guys like Tufts, essentially played together with the big boys. An article like 1950 college football season, as named and defined, covers all these teams and conferences. There are some websites that make some sort of determination about who was a "major" team when, but I'm not sure that any of those are reliable/encyclopedic or historically accurate. The team count in the infobox of a lot of these articles is sourced to http://www.jhowell.net. Who is James Howell? It appears he's some guy who likes college football. Anyway, this all creates a real problem for the maps because we'd have several hundred data points on them. Even in recent years, when we have a clear, defined set of teams in question, I don't find these maps particularly useful. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Support/Defer - The basics of teams and leagues remain in ongoing flux with conflicting sourcing. Thematically, there is no fundamental issue with inclusion of maps for any year, but would prefer to see us further along to avoid disputes and map removal upon status change involving new discovery around particular teams. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with what Jweiss said. I also think that a national map with more than 120 schools is just too busy to be useful. On the other hand, such maps might be useful for "conference season" articles where the geography is more discrete. E.g., 1932 Southern Conference football season, 1955 Big Ten Conference football season. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – too much of a cluster, especially if they in the NCAA season articles. I wouldn't be opposed to what Cbl62 said for conference seasons... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (Support if not clear from earlier context). I think these are a great visual representation of how realignment changes the conference lineups, especially the impact geography has. You get an immediate idea of the geographic footprint of each conference — you get to see all the MAC schools close together, or how spread out CUSA and the mid-1990s WAC are. You see how dramatically West Virginia is separated from the rest of the Big 12, or South Florida from the old Big East, etc. There's just a lot of insight that a map shows that you can't pick up from a standings table. I suppose it was my mistake for putting so many of these maps out there without discussing it first and finding a consensus, but honestly with the established precedent in other sports, it didn't occur to me that some people may not like them. Would any of these calm some above concerns?
  • Making the text a little smaller to reduce clutter (I don't really think they're all that cluttered, no overlapping text or anything, but I guess that's subjective.)
  • Making the map a little wider for the same
  • Using a more cropped basemap to cut down on the clutter? (I don't know if one exists, but there is probably 100 px on each edge of unused space.)
  • Or maybe limiting the maps to only 1956 (or 1978) and later, so that we have a clearly defined set of teams?
I'm open to any ideas to make them better and more acceptable to the community. Jhn31 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose, doesn't add much and significantly increases render/load times and the size of the wikitext. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose them in their current form. 120+ locations is just way too much for any map. Perhaps we can find a way to make maps on these pages work, but this isn't it. Lizard (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

What if ... we removed the writing from the maps, but kept the colored dots, but hovering over the dot showed the name of the team, and clicking on the dot sent to the team's season article? This would allow the maps to become a little smaller too. Jhn31 (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Jhn31, I just noticed this last proposal of yours. I don't think that makes things much better. Again, these articles are generally in very poor shape and the maps are making things worse. Can we nuke the maps? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I am going to move forward with deleting these maps. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Woah, a 5-4 vote is a consensus? And are you also going to be removing similar maps from all of the international soccer and hockey season pages that these maps are based on??? I think you overstepped a lot here — maybe these maps didn't do much for you, but they added a lot to visually-oriented people. Jhn31 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted back the 2017 article at least for now. I really don't want to start an edit war, but I strongly object to these being taken down without having reached any reasonable consensus among the editors here, especially when other sports' season pages have established that the maps ARE appropriate. I am of course open to tweaking the maps to make them meet a larger approval, but I do not agree with just eliminating them altogether.Jhn31 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Lack of consensus would revert back to the status quo before your additions. How many data points do those soccer and hockey maps have? Can you link to examples. Again, these maps are terrible graphically, unnecessary, and ill-defined for certain years. Do you want to improve these season articles? If so, I can direct you to several months worth of needed work. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hampden–Sydney vs. Randolph–Macon rivalry[edit]

there is a mismatch in the rivalry series table in Hampden–Sydney vs. Randolph–Macon rivalry and the series record in the infobox. does anyone know of a source for the head-to-head results for these two teams? Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:CFBCR[edit]

I have nominated Template:CFBCR for deletion. It provided link to the now-defunct College Football Data Warehouse. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

current NFL player sections[edit]

What do we think of these types of generally unsourced, dated sections?

Beyond the existing issues of sourcing and updating, it seems like WP:RECENTISM and possibly UNDUE to callout ~15 players currently in the midst of their 3-year NFL career while the article context is the full ~100 year history of the football program including ~2,000 lettermen.

Any change should have no impact to similar player sections of college/Pro/CFL HoF players, PotY recipients, All-Americans, Heisman vote recipients, etc which are well-established and generally well-cited. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No opinion on whether or not these sections belong, but it's relatively easy to find sources listing schools' alumni in the NFL. Clemson, Florida State, Texas. I don't know how up-to-date it is, but ESPN.com has a list of current NFL players by college. Besides the obvious issue of being highly dynamic, I don't have a problem with these sections. Lizard (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability[edit]

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read - this user may affect WP:CFB next![edit]

Everyone in this WikiProject needs to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Djln categories' creation and his use of HotCat immediately. User:djln is ruining the college basketball WikiProject and I have no doubt WP:CFB is on his radar. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sun Belt "rivalries"[edit]

Y'all User:Supermathguy68 has been placing edits such as this in several SBC articles, linking "rivalry" to pages without linking a page for the "rivalry" (there isn't one for the "rivalry".) Is this standard formatting? Also, JohnInDC has noticed some of his edits such as this. I honestly believe this guy wants to help, (and I know linking him pings him.) However, I think general discussion could be helpful.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed all those others and hoped that someone might raise it here (busy day!) - thanks. I agree, I think discussion is likely to sort things out nicely. JohnInDC (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
JohnInDC, no. That field should only be used if there is an article for the "rivalry" in question, which means that the rivalry itself is generally notable enough to warrant its own article. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, we did have a page for that "rivalry" and it was AfDed. But yes, agree with Jweiss. Lizard (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
JW I think DC agreed that the editor's edits are non-standard, and that by saying "no" that we will have legs to stand on when telling this editor well this.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I think this edit [1] speaks for itself. What is it about the south where everybody thinks every game among conference foes is a "rivalry?"UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
What? You're telling me Tulane and UCF aren't rivals?? Lizard (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I should have been more clear with my comment – what I meant by, discussion will sort it out, was that the editor in question would understand after a while that he is not going about it the right way! JohnInDC (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

bowl content in team article and list of article[edit]

Looking for thoughts on standardization of our bowl game content, re team articles and their stand-alone bowl game articles. Currently there are three main cases:

There are ~50 articles in Category:Lists of college bowl games by team implying general support for the "List of" articles. Assuming the team has played in some reasonable number of bowl games to justify creation of the "List of" article, some version of the third case seems the best for main article space and avoiding table duplication. Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Third case is definitely best, assuming the team has played in a decent amount of bowls. Those tables can take up a lot of real-estate, there's no reason to have them in multiple places. Lizard (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject College football.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject College football, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudos to User:Ostealthy[edit]

@Ostealthy: In the last three months, this user has been cranking out valuable new content (almost a thousand edits) including completing historic annual rankings pages (e.g., 1978 NCAA Division I-A football rankings) and season/team articles on Boston College, Syracuse, Michigan State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Wyoming, Colorado State, BYU, Dartmouth, Fordham, Pitt, Villanova, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Holy Cross, New Mexico, and Southern Miss. Thanks for your efforts! Should you have any questions about college football articles, feel free to post a note here. There are lots of editors with shared interests who will likely be able to help. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)