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.
 


inclusion of jersey numbers in football navboxes[edit]

Hello, there is a discussion on inclusion of player jersey numbers with team-season navboxes in which you may be interested.

Please see: Category talk:NCAA Division I FBS championship team navigational boxes#inclusion of player numbers in NCAA/NFL player navboxes

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That is, should we move away from long-standing consensus of an alphabetized list of player names towards inclusion of unsourced jersey numbers and also break the last name alphabetical convention into two groups of numbers and last names, as is being done by the non-responisve IP editor. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Auto-tagging of articles[edit]

Would anyone be opposed to a bot auto-tagging all articles in Category:College football players in the United States with WikiProject College football's banner. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a no-brainer. I am assuming that it would do so for all of the school subcategories as well? Hey, if it's convenient could you make the request for Category:College men's basketball players in the United States and Category:College women's basketball players in the United States to be tagged with WP:CHOOPS as well? If that's a pain, can you direct me on how to do so? Rikster2 (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would tag all the subcat's as well. It's not my bot though, it's @BU Rob13:'s. So you could ask him and get consensus on the CHOOPS talk page. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the standard operating procedures can be found at User:Yobot#WikiProject_tagging. Do 1, 3, 5, 7 (i.e. have a discussion listing all desired sub-categories - NOT just a broad tree, unless it's extremely simple - and wait three days to see if consensus develops) and then ping me. I strongly encourage you not to do a broad tagging of something like Category:College football, as there's always underlying issues in the category trees, but something like Category:College football players in the United States is easy. It's also best to segment it; do a bit of tagging (players, for example), wait a bit, then come back for another round (coaches, for example). This allows anyone to object if they believe there's an issue or something's being tagged that shouldn't be. I can get a bot approval to allow me to do all tagging as requested by your project, so we won't have to go back to bot approvals for each round. ~ Rob13Talk 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: 1, 3, 5 and 7 seem to have been completed. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: This is ready to get started if you have some time. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I would support this, for both CFB player and coach articles. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Mind pinging me around Tuesday next week, WikiOriginal-9? I'm fairly busy until then. ~ Rob13Talk 00:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. There's no rush to tag the articles. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the articles, @BU Rob13:. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Separate conference champions by decade?[edit]

In an appeal to wiser editors, do you think one should separate out the decades, such as in the Big Eight or Big 12 conference champion navbox, or should we leave it be like with the Big Ten or SEC? Help appreciated. The groups for say the Pac 12 make perfect sense, but the lack of clutter might be being sacrificed for something arbitrary in the above cases.Cake (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. That'd mean about 8–9 rows for the SEC and 11–12 rows for the Big Ten. If we want to prioritize space over readability, I'd say leave as is, but the navboxes would be collapsed most of the time, so I can't really see space being an issue. Lizard (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Flatten, and group by conference where possible. Agree with Cake's edits which removed the explicit and arbitrary decade groupings. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Any word on anybody not here lately?[edit]

I have been wondering, does has anybody found word on the missing. This is mainly in reference to DL and Cbl has seemingly taken a break too. I think we need to double the guard on JW.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nay. If not for DL's random return for a single edit in March and two edits in April, he could've be on the list of missing Wikipedians by now. In fact, he fits the criteria now. Lizard (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Cbl is alive. Lizard (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

division string automatically on new line[edit]

There is a discusion in which you might be interested, at Template talk:Infobox NCAA team season#division string automatically on new line. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete a template?[edit]

Not sure where I got the idea that Parke H. Davis or someone else had Colgate as national champion in 1916, but I did, and so this should be deleted. Cake (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:1916 Colgate football navbox and see WP:G7, I think. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Louisiana (–Lafayette) Ragin' Cajuns We need to settle this once and for all, (unless ESPN and others change which method they use)[edit]

I know there is still some inconsistency with Western Kentucky vs WKU but that pales in comparison to Louisiana–Lafayette vs Lousiana Ragin' Cajuns. What is the WP:Commonname? @Corkythehornetfan:, and @Pncomeaux: have been squabbling about this off and on for some time. This is far from the New York Bulls. NOTE: The university uses Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns (in line with other re-brands such as Little Rock Trojans ESPN uses ULL[1] as does Fox,[2] CBS,[3] the Sun Belt Conference [4], and the NCAA[5]. I think the evidence is clear cut, but some WP:CONSENSUS needs to be stated here to mandate precedence.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Live in Louisiana and have several friends that attend ULL, and I've never heard it referred to as anything besides Louisiana–Lafayette. To me, if someone said "Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns" I'd look at them like they were silly, but I know anecdotal accounts isn't how Wikipedia works. Lizard (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Honestly you'd have a better case for Louisiana–Lafayette → UL Lafayette than you would for Louisiana–Lafayette → Louisiana. Or even just ULL. By the way that NCAA link is to a blank page. Lizard (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I took someone's prior research from Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns and got results which align with the current article name:

Louisiana Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns

  1. http://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/309/louisiana-lafayette-ragin-cajuns

Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns

  1. http://www.si.com/college-football/team/louisiana-lafayette-ragin'-cajuns
  2. http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/team/louisiana-lafayette-ragin'-cajuns/ylufnjlo0htr7pl8vcgy8evx
  3. http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/louisiana-lafayette-ragin'-cajuns-team
  4. http://scores.nbcsports.msnbc.com/cfb/teamstats.asp?team=0045&report=teamhome
  5. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/louisiana-lafayette/
  6. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/teams/ssq/

UL LAFAYETTE RAGIN CAJUNS

  1. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/teams/page/LALAF/ul-lafayette-ragin-cajuns
You could also lookup some local and AP stories, rather than just the team page headers, but the above and Talk page comments are enough to convince me the article is adhering to WP:COMMONNAME. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Louisiana–Lafayette, per longstanding prior previous consensus, and Remove all references to "Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns" from Wikipedia. I could support ONE "Team name" section on the main Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns article explaining the various names and branding initiatives the school has gone through over the years, but it must be neutrally worded, reliably sourced, and it must strictly adhere to NPOV. But, that's all, as, plain and simple, this has gone on for far too long. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree, I started a discussion at Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns#characterization of the non WP:COMMONNAME(s) which is hindsight is likely to morph into a correction/removal of ~30 instances of "Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns" in various article leads. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Collapse spurious discussion. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like Pncomeaux is a WP:SPA with an agenda. The username (Comeaux, a common Cajun surname) leads me to believe he attends ULL or might even work for the university. Would explain his persistence. But yes there should be a team name section explaining they used to be called the Southwest Louisiana Bulldogs. Lizard (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
and it looks to me like lizard, as an avid lsu fan, is a WP:SPA with an agenda.....

Here are the facts again:

1. 'Louisiana Ragin Cajuns' is the preferred branding method for the school. There is nothing whatsoever 'illegal' about that. All of the school's venues (football, baseball fields, basketball court, etc.) are marked that way, as are the uniforms. This has been the case for over 15 years.
2. The opposition from this in the state comes manly from two sources: lsu and LTU.
3. The anecdotal evidence that lizard supplied is extremely biased and should read in that context. In opposition, I can give a couple of observations:

~A. On the Boise State fan forum, we are clearly referred to and thought as 'louisuana.' http://www.scout.com/college/boise-state/forums/2246-blue-turf-board/14868323-who-s-going-to-the-opener-against-louisiana ~B. During the Minute Maid classic this spring, the team was also listed as such, and the announcers often used that term as well. ~C. These are just a couple of examples to prove that the name is catching on in some quarters....despite what has been stated here.

Bottom line, if a school wants to rebrand itself, it is hard to believe that this would prohibited on Wikipedia. At the very least, there is zero reason from prohibiting the 'often referred to as.....' verbiage each time that 'Louisiana-Lafayette' is used. Can someone tell me how this is adversely impacting articles? What possible harm could that produce, other than for those who have an agenda to ensure the re-branding is not successful....based on their personal bias? It seems clear to me that this accomplishes both goals: it uses the more commonly used name, but also allows information that the school is trying to re-brand itself, which we know for a fact that they are. Where is the harm in that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talkcontribs) 17:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns#characterization of the non WP:COMMONNAME(s) and review WP:AGF, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:V. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect I'd like to think my contributions are a little bit broader than changing the name of my favorite team on every article I run across that includes it. Lizard (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with the collapsing of these comments. Hiding them away as "spurious discussion" as if they hold little value isn't much different than just deleting them. Valid points were raised here. Lizard (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's rebranding like the Cumberland Phoenix, but I've heard Southwestern Louisiana more times than I've heard "Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns'. If anything, that name is because "ragin cajuns" is so unique, rather than the university being called simply "Louisiana". Cake (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Southwestern Louisiana University was the counterpart to Southeastern Louisiana University, if only because of the eastern-western names. Now Louisiana–Lafayette is kind of a de-facto counterpart with Louisiana–Monroe. Both part of the University of Louisiana system. Lizard (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that you have made comments similar to what Corky has raised in the past. I suppose that one person's facts can be construed as another's ad hominem argument. That being said his whole argument is in fact, paraphrasing, this is how the university wants it. The prevailing consensus at this point is: prove that mainstream sources utilize it then we'll discuss moving. On a similar note I remember when Okie State played the Cajuns a few years back that the local TV stations used either Louisiana-Lafayette and Louisiana, but my undocumented story isn't a credible source. Whereas, we can observe what major news outlets from outside the state call the program.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Template for computing QB rating?[edit]

Is there a Template which computes the college QB rating formula, Passer rating#NCAA formula? My search didn't find one. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lol math and football. Try asking WP:MLB to make a QBR template for us. They love their ratios. Lizard (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Request is dying a slow death here Wikipedia:Requested templates#NFL and NCAA passing (quarterback) rating templates UW Dawgs (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems like it would be a pretty simple 3-minute thing to make for someone who knew what they were doing. Too bad I don't know how to do it lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The much maligned offseason uniform thread[edit]

Any artistic folk perusing wikiproject college football? Only recently I realized the "uniform" parameter for season articles, in e. g. 1957 San Francisco 49ers season. Hopefully I am not only motivating its removal by attempting to provide such for the pre-1933 days of college football. Any help would be much appreciated. For example, there seem to be a few standard types of shirts: the friction stripes (see Grange) and the kind of padded circular wing thingies were popular in the 20s (see Wycoff). Before those the mere striped sleeves were popular (see Wade). There's also the stripe across the chest (see McMillin). People like Scott Sillcox will provide representations of certain teams (though he cannot always be trusted); such as these. Cards and programs might also provide color illustrations as guidelines. There are also a few types of pants. Socks seem even more a part of the uniform than the pants, and can be difficult to make out in black and white photographs. Lastly, the crude leather helmet leaves me with a crude drawing, but I wish a better draftsman would handle it. So, if you can draw, or if you know of photographs or color illustrations to help with any old major college program, let me know. Cake (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

retired numbers in team navbox[edit]

Recall, years ago the CFB team navboxes were very dissimilar and inconsistent, and through much effort and consensus they are now very uniform. See Category:NCAA Division I FBS team navigational boxes. AND, there was a TfD discussion which deleted stand-alone templates of each school's retired numbers.

My search of the talk archive shows discussions around including retired numbers in our team navboxes, of which I believe this discussion from 2013 is the most recent discussion. Participation seems limited, but also seems to trend towards inclusion of retired numbers in the navbox.

Here are some of the options discussed to support retired numbers:

  1. Include as stand-alone navbox (now precluded by the TfD outcome, above)
  2. Include within the infobox (this runs counter to smaller infoboxes focussed on the most relevant content)
  3. Support via new, stand-alone row within existing team navbox (allows each number to link to the associated player article; player articles with retired numbers then include the team navbox which is slightly odd)
  4. Support within existing "People" row of the team navbox (new text link of "Retired numbers" points to corresponding section within main team article)
  5. Article-only (don't create a global nabov entry point)

FWIW, sibling projects lack a uniform execution:

I originally leaned to #3 (strong visuals of the actual player numbers and with direct links to each player), but now am leaning toward #4 (space efficient, presume not every school has retired numbers). Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Either No. 4 or No. 5. Unlike the NFL, where having your jersey retired is usually the highest honor, and thus only a few players are ever honored that way, it's not as clear cut in college. Its significance varies. LSU (which I'm using as an example not because of bias or an agenda, but because I'm familiar with the program) has only retired 2 jerseys, and their names and number are emblazoned in Tiger Stadium. Meanwhile, Kentucky retires the jersey of every player who participates in a Kentucky win. Lizard (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, Kentucky's retired the number 80 three times lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Lizard (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of option 5 above. Sure, let's detail retired numbers in the main program article. Option 1 and 3 lead to navbox clutter on bio articles. Option 2 is poor form for the infobox; retired numbers are not important enough to be detailed there. Option 4 is poor form for the team navbox. Links in a navbox should be to distinct articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
On the "people" row, should we include founding figures in it? Hard to think of somebody more deserving of inclusion in than navbox than say William Lofland Dudley for Vandy, or W. M. Riggs for Clemson. Cake (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Black college football national champion navboxes?[edit]

Thoughts on Category:Black College Football National Champions navigational boxes and {{2015 North Carolina A&T Aggies football navbox}}? I don't think these should exist but am too lazy to nominate for deletion. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Template has been nominated Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 28. If TfD passes, I think CfD has a speedy for empty categories. So I'm guessing this will be resolved, shortly. Explicitly, if a similar HBCU NC navbox were created again for any HBCU team, I see no issue placing it in the existing Category:NCAA Division I FCS championship team navigational boxes as this is akin to our treatment of various Major Selectors in FBS.
However, there is a related topic. See Black college football national championship and #Selectors as a useful primer for editors (like me) not remotely versed with the topic. Our CFB navbox cleanup resulted in a consistent row of links to the program's seasons with a footer row of "National championship seasons in bold." See FBS or FCS categories as helpful.
Previously, I thought the meaning of that footer text was clear, even for former FCS schools now in FBS -the "national champsionship" selector or playoff result was earned against the full scope of all teams competing in that level of FBS, FCS, Div II, or Div III for that year by whatever method (selector or playoff). However, HBCU national championships are different, awarded against a subset of all teams in that level for that year. ie, 2013 championships for Template:North Dakota State Bison football navbox (one team, via FCS playoffs) and Template:Tennessee State Tigers football navbox (one of three teams, via selectors) mean very different things, but use the same footer text. That seems wrong.
Could we address by modifying HBCU navbox footers to "HBCU national championship seasons in bold" if none of the programs have achieved an unqualified national championship? Trying to avoid recreating the visual confusion and clutter of the old CFB navboxes (italics for conference championships, underline for division champions, etc) and explicitly not make the navbox feel like as Scarlet A for these programs. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This is without a doubt one of the most overlooked subjects of this WikiProject. Personally, I believe that we should include these championships before 1973 with a bold link. My rationale being that these schools often didn't play white schools on a regular basis and a black national championship has merit. After 1973 these teams were members of the NAIA/NCAA divisional structure with some teams e.g. 1978 Florida A&M Rattlers football team, 1995 Central State Marauders football team winning national championships within the current structure of college football. The MEAC and SWAC has automatic bids to the FCS playoffs, which they have previously participated but currently abstain. The CIAA and the SIAC sends teams to the Division II playoffs, therefore it should have an exception to not be as prominent IMO. Short answer before 73, stand alongside NC, after give it the same prominence as NCCAA (not a typo) national championships.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Also note, the number of co-champions across the FCS/D-II (and then NAIA) spectrum, since 1990 there has only been 3 outright "champions".UCO2009bluejay (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI...[edit]

Tom Danson has requested a move:

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,

Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

update team-season article notability documentation?[edit]

Does this section WP:CFBSEASON on individual season notability need to be updated?

Last year's multiple campaigns (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Single-season articles - proposed campaign and similar) to flatten program-by-coach-tenure articles and program-by-decade articles into stand-alone season articles, as well as create articles for missing seasons aricles for Top-20 programs, did not seem to involve discussion of notability. So we have articles for "every" season of many historic Top-20 programs. BTW, this was great for fellow haters of the Template:cfb link syntax and those who work in x-cfb list articles, where the sleding is much easier, now.

But as a result, we now have 1974 LSU Tigers football team covering a 5-5-1 season under HC Charles McClendon's 13th of 28 seasons at the helm, so someone might feel inclined to create 1932 New Mexico A&M Aggies with a 4–5–1 record under Jerry Hines' 4th of 11 seasons. And then the later ends up in AfD with a very predicatable food fight. (not trying to equate W-L with GNG, here, just trying to illustrate a notability issue) UW Dawgs (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression our plan was to create individual season articles for every university that ever has/had a football program. Why else would Template:Central Arkansas Bears football navbox or Template:Dayton Flyers football navbox have links for every season? Lizard (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I support that goal, but the Project doesn't get to locally define notability. So this might end in a house of cards issue across many of the new articles. Seen more favorably, college football is following the model used in the big four pro leagues. Related, does anyone's read of WP:Redirect let us create season year articles as redirects to the main articles as a starting point? (think no longer needing Template:cfb link vs WP:Redlinks encouraging creation of the season-year articles) UW Dawgs (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
My view is that single season articles for FBS programs would pretty clearly satisfy GNG standards. I have real doubt, however, as to whether such articles could pass GNG for the vast majority of lower tier programs. Some do, of course, but most would probably not. Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The thinking apparent in the assessment table is FBS and FCS are ok, while Division 3, NAIA, etc, probably need a reason for being. Cake (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I created redirects for Category:Arizona Wildcats football seasons articles which didn't exist. This makes it easier to edit list articles and avoid the CFB link template. Let me know if you object, otherwise Pac-12 programs may continue to be flushed out with redirects where there are article gaps. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Table headings[edit]

I just created {{CollegePrimaryHeader}} and {{CollegeSecondaryHeader}} for creating colored table headings in team articles. you can see an example in an article in USC Trojans football statistical leaders. it currently supports a maximum of 6 columns, but that limit will be lifted once I have a chance to merge the core code with Module:College color. it supports a maximum of 50 columns. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, this is very helpful and also helps drive awareness and adoption of Module:College color. This in turn reduces usage of inline hex colors which occasionally change, or are incorrectly implemented as the University's academic colors. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This is very cool; thanks for doing it. Would it be possible to have the option to make the text color for the PrimaryHeader be the Secondary Color and vice-versa? This would also allow for the Primary and Secondary headers to be different for schools like Alabama, Mississippi State, Arkansas, etc., who use white as their secondary color - the secondary header could be a white box with crimson/maroon/cardinal text. Jhn31 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely a lot better than the thousands of bytes dedicated to hex colors. Although on a separate note the alternating colors between successive table headings looks a little tacky, but maybe that's just me. Lizard (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice work. No more align="center" bgcolor="" Cake (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The best option for font color – if she hasn't already done it – is to set it so it automatically sets the contrast, just like when she converted the module into the infoboxes. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • yes, font color is automatic, and I suppose we probably should allow for light background colors. the override logic is currently inherited from the infobox header function, where light backgrounds were not desired. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • now updated Frietjes (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I rolled this out to most of the Pac-12 pages, per Category:Pac-12 Conference teams. Meaning, unstyled tables were left as-is grey/grey, but inline sytled tables were generally updated with Template:CollegePrimaryHeader (top row, often), Template:CollegeSecondaryHeader (bottom row, infrequet) or via Template:CollegePrimaryHex and Template:CollegeSecondaryHex to simply replace the hard-coded hex value and stop the madness (looking at you, UA and ASU). Will be curious to see the user reaction and if they "get it."
The two biggest takeaways involved spanned cells, both in the footer summary row where summed data didn't exist for some columns such as names, notes, refs, and such, but then also via use of two header rows and spanned cells in the top of the two (ex, "Polls" spanning above "AP" and "Coaches", or centered string spanning all cells which were redundant to the section header string -looking at you, Oregon). Let's let this bake and see some feedback, but perhaps there is potential for some project-wide cleanup. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, can you provide a link to a colspan/rowspan example? there may be something we can do there. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, USC Trojans football#National titles (footer), Oregon Ducks football#Playoffs, or Arizona Wildcats football in "All time record versus Rivals". That area in both the Oregon link and Arizona Wildcats football#Divisional Championships have representative examples of col spanning. In most cases I think we need to remove a header row as being redundant to the section label, but optional spaning would a very nice enhancement to SecondaryCollegeHeader in particular -so we probably want to make the same modification to both templates to avoid editors gaming the system. Note, in many cases I was taking baby steps in the Pac-12 articles due to fear of ownership issues and reverts due to perceived big, mass changes. There is obvious room for cleaning of inline markup within all of these articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, I see. for table rows, which are not table headers, you can usually just style the entire row (as I am sure you discovered). we can definitely add the option colspans for each column heading. since most headers will span only one column, we could have say colspan2 = 3, which would mean the second column header spans 3 columns, with the default being a span of 1. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
added |col<NUM>span=. since footers should not use <th>...</th> we should have a separate template for those, if necessary. otherwise, just style the entire row. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

ColPollTable[edit]

Hey guys. I recently came across Template:ColPollTable and its subtemplates and decided to turn it into a more robust module. I have a test based on 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings in my sandbox. The main improvement is that instead of requiring different templates for each amount of weeks, I created a check that just looks for the highest week defined (currently, it supports 50 weeks, twice the highest count available currently). After a brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lua, Mr.S suggested I come here next to ask if ColPolTable is the desirable way to do things. This was part of my original concerns. These templates have relatively few transclusions, which leads me to believe there might be a superior template that you guys prefer instead.

A couple notes about the module: I thought it only went up to 20, but according to PI, it goes up to 25. And from the looks of it, 25 rows isn't always the desired amount. I can probably fix this to be as robust as the week definition, but I'd like to discuss how to proceed with you guys first. If there's reason to continue using this template, I'll gladly update the code. moluɐɯ 11:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This gets use in several of the college sports projects, which results in the number of weeks (columns) and teams (rows) varying pretty widely. Even though there's only one page using the template per sport (or division, in football) per season, the pages are relatively highly visible. It definitely would be easier to have the template hold the coding for these differences. Billcasey905 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I can definitely get it working then. Can you think of any reason to not have the module detect the highest second number defined in the "Week1-Y" parameters? That seems like it would be easiest and most straight forward way to rework this template. I'm not sure if there's any instance where the first week has any intentionally undefined parameters though. moluɐɯ 17:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I reworked the module to detect the highest number of rows needed. It's based off of Week1's data, so if any other week has a higher number of rows, those rows will be ignored. I did this because I'm assuming that all cells are always defined in a complete table. If there's any reason this won't work please tell me. Is there any other improvement that the module may need before it can be considered for replacing the old templates? moluɐɯ 10:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Ties for 25th is a situation where this logic might not work. Jhn31 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you have an example of this? And how it should appear? moluɐɯ 18:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:American college football All-Americans[edit]

This Template:American college football All-Americans nominally returns the All-American count for a given school, such as being embedded within the infobox of a team article. It appears to be out-of-date and/or omits schools (Arizona State Sun Devils football which isn't return anything vs an expected count of ~18). Yes/no? Do we have a page which flags templates which span the project and need annual review/refresh? UW Dawgs (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"#13" or "No. 13" styling in 2016 conf standings templates[edit]

There is minor editing warring (example) in multiple conf templates in Category:2016 NCAA Division I FBS standings templates, with editors going back and forth on "#13 XYZ Wildcats" vs "No. 13 XYZ Wildcats" stlye in multiple conference standings templates.

MOS:NUMBERSIGN seems pretty clear to use "No. 13" style. -which looks weird to me from both Media Guide and broadcast TV perspectives. Also, the "Schedule" section within the 19xx XYZ Wildats football team articles seem to use the #13 format for team and opponent rankings. And now we have some mixed behavior within articles such as 2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team using both "No. 1" in the infobox and schedule section AND "#1" within the included 2015 SEC standings template -which is awful.

So this is a big mess from a consistency perspective. The Media Guides as source material for much of our historical content seem to (exclusive?) use the "#13" style in tables such as rankings and schedules. In prose, I'm guesing editors are likely writing in multiple ways ("...played thirteenth-ranked XYZ," "...played at #13 XYZ," etc).

Which do we prefer within the standings templates? If "#13," (which I think is more compatible with the existing articles which include standings templates), do we think we have an exception from MOS or that doesn't apply? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly we were using the pound sign in standings templates until recently the No. usage was used. Frankly I prefer the pound sign, but that is just my perspective.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I also prefer the pound sign. The "No. _" takes up a lot of undue space in an already crowded schedule template and looks awkward.Cbl62 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say that the pound sign was used in the season schedules, and the infoboxes for individual seasons. Did this change recently.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that MOS:NUMBERSIGN is explicit; personally I don't think "No." looks all that bad. There's also the situation that the pound symbol is used for notes in some tables: in the SEC standings template on 2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team it indicates national champion. Within the same row the pound sign means two entirely different things. I think it makes sense to use "No." throughout. Mackensen (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon review, clearly our historical consensus is to use #13 styling within the standings, per:

Waiting for a bit more feedback. Taking a stand on this seems to have much larger project implications, with possible downside to the contentious editing spreading to historical articles resulting in more inconsistency. I think, generally, the folks making the standings update the minute after the end of game are drive-by editors and not working on team or team-season articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "#XY" to "No. XY" across the board, personally. It's also generally the common style used across CFB and the media reporting on CFB related news. Just my .02 —  dainomite   22:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No. looks shitty and takes up way too much space. I favor the pound sign (#). Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Favor "No." per MOS:POUND. "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings." It's as clear as day. Lizard (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we'll have to go with "No." because of MOS:POUND, but I agree it looks terrible. Any way we could get the MOS:POUND rule changed? Jhn31 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Have you met the MOS people? Lizard (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I also prefer # over No. But, I will go with whatever is decided. Lincolning (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should have this discussion at the Manual of Style. I mean, it does say to use "No.". Maybe they could make an exception for sports or something. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If we ask for an exception for sports, then we'd just as well ask them to remove the guideline entirely. "Use No. except for comic books and sports." Besides Billboard charts, that wouldn't leave much else that wasn't an exception. Lizard (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The MOS says to use "No.", so that's my preference. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

College football in Japan...[edit]

This is interesting... Kantoh Collegiate American Football Association. Looks like college football is expanding!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tennessee–Martin Skyhawks which affects an article for this WikiProject. Your participation is requested. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Single season article deletion[edit]

1908 Colorado Silver and Gold football team is up for deletion. (Not by me) Interested editors are encouraged to participate.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

assist with ongoing data cleanup project[edit]

We have a new minor data cleanup project, context shown at Template talk:Infobox NCAA team season#division string automatically on new line. The work involves removing a single <br> tag, while leaving the data intact.

So the old format:

| conference        = Pac-12 Conference
| division          = <br /> South Division

Is updated to this format:

| conference        = Pac-12 Conference
| division          = South Division

Here is the tracking Cat at Category:Pages using infobox NCAA team season with spurious br tag in division which shows articles in need of this change.

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That didn't take long. There were only like ten articles in that category. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Cat is filled automatically by ongoing bot discovery. So guessing it's 100+ ultimately (since we often copy the 20xx article to stub the new 20xx+1 article), but not sure of bot population frequency. Besides, if we all watch the pot, the water boils faster. ;) UW Dawgs (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yh, I just fixed some more. Some college basketball got thrown in there lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
700+ instances and growing. Will see if I can pull in a WP:AWB solution. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This is now resolved via WP:AWB with a Category filter. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Starting quarterback navbox[edit]

Now that there are quarterback navboxes for, along with several FCS and lower teams, would it be appropriate to have a single navbox for all current starting quarterbacks? Using the same format of the NFL one, I made this rough draft:

I could see some arguments either way on whether a navbox like this appropriate -- on the con side, there are many redlinks on the page, and quarterback situations can vary from week to week. On the other hand, by limiting it to P5 only (and then anyone else notable listed below), any redlinks that appear should be notable enough to have an article, and there's not as much to update regularly. Jhn31 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I weakly oppose. While I think it is a novel idea. I could see the argument that we shouldn't stop at the power five schools, and it would need to be expanded to all FBS programs. Also, I think it would need to be updated more frequently than one would imagine. Then are we going to include coaches, coordinators, etc. Perhaps conference QBs could be an option but there already has been deletion of certain types of conference navboxes, (consortiums, current team seasons, past year team seasons etc.)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is better served by content that grows and becomes more or less permanent. This content changes week-to-week, season-to-season. I do realize NFL project does this (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).—Bagumba (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
'Comment I don't even like the NFL QB navbox. Cake (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose College quarterbacks aren't inherently notable, so some of those red links will never be blue. Lizard (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Media Guides[edit]

Here is a SB nation compilation of all the media guides for the 2015 season. I believe some nuggets could be found in many of these.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Statistical leaders lists[edit]

Should we generally use top 10s. Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders uses top 20s? I am looking to add Amara Darboh who made his 11 career TD catch this past weekend and am thinking this threshold seems a bit low.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Media guides will vary in depth, so don't think there either is or should be a hard rule. Believe @Jhn31: has been the main driver of this page type and can comment. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I would favor limiting such lists to the top 10s. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Michigan page was created about 5 years before I started making pages, so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes by making edits on it. Eventually I did decide to change the style of the Michigan article to fit the others, and added stats like total offense and kicking, but didn't change any underlying data. Considering how the 2 of the article's 3 main editors have already advocated limiting it to top 10s only on this thread, I'm inclined to agree with them.Jhn31 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

TfD feedback[edit]

Not 100% sure what Template:Florida State college football champions pre-1910 navbox is. Possibly this is 1901-1909 independents in Florida with the best record? UW Dawgs (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Before a program competed for national championships, or conference championships, they played for state championships. It's why some programs, such as Tennessee will note that it's first conference championship was the first of any kind (i. e., before then, no state titles), or various places note state titles (e. g. the 1890 Nebraska article). The 1893 Auburn Tigers team picture, for instance, has a football labeled "Champions Ala & Ga" (presumably Georgia Tech were also Georgia state champs). Florida was in the college football game relatively late, and I managed to dig deep enough to know all the state titles before UF joined the SIAA in 1912 (UF was best team in the state in 10, 11, 12,...) It would be 1901-1909 independents in Florida with the best record against other teams in Florida. Cake (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Big Sky Questions and general small college questions[edit]

I have noticed something peculiar on some early Category:Big Sky Conference football standings templates and it reminds me of a few questions.

-ThoughtsUCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Narrowly re Idaho, pg 182 2015 Media Guide has conf affiliations and Idaho Vandals football infobox is definitely incomplete re early years including Independent and 1905 "Northwest". UW Dawgs (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
UCO2009bluejay, it seems that Idaho joined the Big Sky Conference as a charter member in 1963, but did not compete in the conference in football until 1965. I think Idaho should probably not be listed in Template:1963 Big Sky football standings or Template:1964 Big Sky football standings. Notre Dame certainly does not belong in the ACC standings. They are an independent in football.
As for the inter-divisional games you've noted above, the standard generally seems to be not to explicitly note it in the schedule tables, unless it is to clarify a ranking. The style used at 1985 Idaho Vandals football team and other Idaho season articles is largely the work of User:Glacier109 and seems to be anomalous.
What's the issue with 2014 Montana State Bobcats football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the 1-0 Idaho row from the 1963 Big Sky standings, per above and pg 184. Idaho now first appears in the 1965 standings, consistent with both the inline comment in the infobox of the main article and pg 184. See List of Big Sky Conference football standings as helpful. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: Do we typically put breaks in between conference and non-con and postseason games? (I am not totally against the regular/postseason.)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Season articles campaign - update[edit]

Last year, we started the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign. In 2015, we created more than 3,500 new season articles. So far in 2016, we have created another 1,900 articles, including articles for every season played by 48 programs. There are still a number of Power 5 programs that need to be filled out, including Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, California, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Ole Miss, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, TCU, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, Washington State, and West Virginia. Volunteers willing to contribute to the effort are welcome and appreciated.

Some have expressed concerns about the creation of sub-stub articles that consist of no more than an infobox, standings chart, and a single sentence of introductory text. Ideally, a season article should include (a) reliable sources (hopefully, with formatting that is not a mere bare url); (b) infobox including as much of the data as can be found; (c) standings chart if the team was part of a conference; (d) schedule/results chart; and (e) meaningful narrative text describing as much of the following as can be found: win-loss record (conference and non-conference); conference membership and finish; points scored/allowed; head coach and year of service; records set; championship claims; bowl games; rankings in the final AP and Coaches polls; significant player and coach honors and awards (including all-conference, All-American); team captain; MVP awards; name of home field/stadium; and key team statistical leaders (readily available on SR/College Football for modern era). As the articles progress further, full rosters and game summaries are also helpful. While we haven't adopted a minimum standard for article creation, and each person should do what he or she is capable of doing. Collaboration toward incremental improvement is key. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer to have a more robust article for a season article myself, but I don't object to a stub that gets improved over time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking good if someone else can take Cal and Miami (FL). Cake (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

recruiting section on team articles[edit]

In 2013, this UofO IP Special:Contributions/128.223.223.221 helped give us the semi-adopted and uncited "Scout.com" recruiting rankings, as still seen at:

The hallmarks are a display table without a border, use of Scout.com exclusively, lack of any citations, and player names as text rather than links. I'm not opposed to a recruiting section, but not as an uncited table of names/numbers. Before being Bold, any other opinions on keep/fix vs remove for now? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Drayton McLane Baseball Stadium at John H. Kobs Field[edit]

so a question......The above is Michigan State's current baseball stadium and a Wikipedia article currently exists for it. John H. Kobs field inside the stadium was formerly known as Old College Field where Michigan State (or the Aggies as they were known then) played their football games from 1900-1922. My guess is to wait for someone to write an article about Old College Field (or should we link the baseball stadium to the appropriate football articles)?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand the description (it is the same structure used in football, not just location), you could
UW Dawgs (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
there really was no structure back then, the field was used for baseball and football until the football stadium was built elsewhere. The name of the field as I understand it remained as College Field until named for Kobs in 1969. Renovations in 2009 created the stands, etc.........I've changed the language as much as I dare for the above article right now until I get more feedback......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Identical situation to Gamble Field which was a general use athletic field (fb and baseball) and a center for university gatherings. Sounds like you should expand the existing article with football content, rather than creating a new article. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
not identical, CU has a new building (not sports related) on the old site of Gamble, and MSU is still referring to Old College Field as the current home for baseball and soccer, but it sounds like there are separate stands for each sport from a recent renovation.....reading some more, Old College Field is a term they still use on campus for baseball, softball, and soccer but it looks like now each sport has its own place with separate facilities within it. May be a new article is warranted.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I got it right for Old College Field......I'd be open for comments....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Florida–UCF football rivalry which affects an article for this WikiProject. Your participation is requested. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranking colors[edit]

What is the color scheme we are using for a team's week-to-week ranking chart for unranked teams receiving votes? The first week a team receives votes, is that no change in ranking (white), previously unranked (yellow), or improvement in ranking (green)? If a team received votes last week but is now ranked in the top 25 is that previously unranked (yellow) or an improvement in ranking (green)? Similarly, if a team received votes last week but did not this week, is that a drop in ranking (red), or no change in ranking (white). Can RV be considered a "ranking" of 26 for the purposes of coloring these charts? My understanding is that RV is still "unranked".

For examples, see 2016 Big Ten Conference football season#Rankings. Specifically, are Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, and Wisconsin colored per policy? Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  Pre Wk
2
Wk
3
Wk
4
Wk
5
Wk
6
Wk
7
Springfield Yo-yos RV = "26" RV 25 24 25 RV
RV = NR RV 25 24 25 RV
Legend
    Improvement in ranking
  Drop in ranking
  Not ranked previous week
  No change in ranking from previous week
RV Received votes but were not ranked in Top 25 of poll

National Titles listing years in Info boxes[edit]

Such wikis such as Alabama Crimson Tide football, Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, Pittsburgh Panthers football list national titles years in the info box. When is the line drawn for the years being listed to many? I made edits to Michigan, USC, UCLA, Minnesota, and Illinois to the same style of the other universities by listing the national titles years in the info box. When Alabama is listing 16 claimed national titles and 4 unclaimed, Notre Dame is listing 11 claimed national titles and 11 unclaimed national titles etc... Then Michigan edits of listing only the 11 claimed national titles is too many to have in the info box is something I believe we need to address. I agree I can see how listing that many years in the info box can be seen as too much information for the panel, at the same time when you have other universities with more information listen when is it too much? Any thoughts on this would be welcomed to help make the template for College Football wikis to be in the same style for info boxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerFrosty (talkcontribs) 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at some of the men's basketball infoboxes (Duke, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA), I'm surprised to learn that there's an effort to keep the information brief at all. We list tournament appearances there! I say list 'em. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is not typically a good argument. Infoboxes should be brief. Only information vital to the understanding of the article should be listed in it. Obviously that's subjective, but let's try to set a better example and hope other projects follow, instead of adopting the bad habits of those other projects. Lizard (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't find the year-by-year listings to be particularly useful, and cluttery, when the number nudges up into double digits. It's - just a long, hard-to-scan stream of numbers. I don't feel all that strongly about it, but do believe that infoboxes are the most useful when a reader can take in the info in them in a glance, which you really can't with a list of a dozen or so years jammed up next to one another. JohnInDC (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

ESPN College Football on ABC results[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN College Football on ABC results in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)