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.


"New" vs. "old" Big East for basketball articles[edit]

Please take part in a discussion on this at Talk:Big East Conference#"New" vs. "old" Big East for basketball articles. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk)

Update 2.0 re season articles campaign[edit]

It's now been a month since we started the campaign to create season articles on the most important historic football programs, we've made some great progress -- almost 950 new season articles created, including the following:

  • Arkansas - Season articles created by cbl62 for 81 years from 1899 to 1979 . Still needed: 1980-99
  • Army - Season articles created by cbl62 for 76 years from 1890-1978 (schedule tables still needed). Still needed: 1980-84, 1986-2004
  • Auburn - Season articles created by Patriarca for 1925-28. Still needed: 1929-30, 1933-43
  • Georgia - Season articles created by Cake for 113 years from 1892-2004
  • Ga. Tech - Season articles created by Cake for 1892-26. Still needed: 1929-51, 1953-89, 1991-95 1929-30
  • Illinois - Season articles created by Cake for 1914, 1919, 1923-24, 1927. Still needed: 1892-1913, 1915-18, 1920-22, 1925-26, 1928-45, 1947-63, 1966-82, 1984-88, 1990, 1992-93
  • Indiana - Season article created for 1945. Still needed: 1887-1944, 1946-63, 1965-66, 1968-72, 1974, 1976-78, 1980-86, 1990, 1992-95
  • Kansas - Season article created for 1899. Still needed: 1891-98, 1900-60, 1962-63, 1965-77, 1979-87
  • Kansas State - Season articles created by UCO2009bluejay for 1908-10. Still needed: 1896-1907, 1911-21, 1923-31,
  • LSU - Season articles created by Cake for 27 years from 1893-1919 and for 12 other missing years
  • Michigan State - Season articles created by cbl62 for 91 years from 1896 to 1986 (schedule tables still needed)
  • Minnesota - Season articles created by cbl62 for most of the 114 years from 1890 to 2003
  • Navy - Season articles created by Pvmoutside for 116 years from 1887 to 2002
  • Notre Dame - Season articles created by Pvmoutside for 1997-2001. Still needed: 1888-1910, 1911-1923, 1925-28, 1930, 1931-42, 1944-45, 1951-63, 1965, 1967-69, 1980-81, 1983-86, 1989-96.
  • Oklahoma - Season articles created by UCO2009bluejay and cbl62 for 55 years from 1895-1949
  • Penn State - Season articles created by Pvmoutside for 116 years from 1881 to 2001
  • Purdue - Season article created for 1892, 1929, 1943. Still needed: 1887-91, 1893-1928, 1930-42, 1944-59, 1962-64, 1967
  • Texas - Season articles created by Cake for 1900, 1904, 1910, 1920-23. Still needed: 1893-96, 1897, 1898-99, 1901-06, 1907-09, 1911-13, 1914, 1915-19, 1924-38, 1940-45, 1947-62, 1966-68
  • USC - Season articles created by cbl62 for 88 years from 1914 to 2001

Programs still in serious need of a volunteer/sponsor include:

  • Florida State - no single-season articles for the pre-Bobby Bowden era. See Florida State Seminoles football, 1947–75
  • Miami (FL) - no articles whatsoever for about 50 years as follows: 1926-61, 1963-65, and 1967-78.
  • Ohio State - missing articles for 1895-1898, 1900-1903, 1905-1911.1912
  • Pitt - missing seasons are: 1890-1914, 1919-1928, 1930, 1932-1933, 1935, 1938-1954, 1957-1959, 1961-1962, 1964-1970.
  • Oregon - no articles whatsoever for about 50 years as follows: 1917-18, 1920-26, 1928-32, 1934-38, 1940-47, 1949-62, 1965-67. 1929
  • UCLA - no articles whatsoever for about 50 years as follows: 1923-37, 1939, 1942-50, 1952, 1955-64, and 1966-70. Also, reliance on a bare-bones decades list for the 80s: UCLA Bruins football, 1980–89.
  • Washington - there are only two single-season articles prior to 2005. Instead, there are simply bare-bones decades lists. See Washington Huskies football, 1990–99.
Penn State sure was completed quietly. Well done. If I may, I submit these programs for consideration due to their pre-WW2 significance; which also means they should not require nearly as much effort as some of the above:
  • Carlisle - Season articles made by myself a bit ago for 1893, 1895-97, 1899-1901, 1903, 1906-07, 1911-14.
  • Chicago - Season articles made by myself for title years of 1905 and 1913. Other than those, no articles prior to 2014.1892, 1894, 1898-1899, 1922
  • Columbia - Prior to 2011, a single article for 1875. 1870-1872, 1901
  • Cornell - Prior to 2011, 1915, 1921-23, 1939
  • Dartmouth - Prior to 2011, 1895-99, and a single article for 1925. 1908, 1913
Cake, these Dartmouth articles are mis-titled, prior to 1974, the WP:COMMONNAME for Dartmouth athletic teams was the "Dartmouth Indians." Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh shoot. Didn't even know that. Good catch. Cake (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Penn - Prior to 2004, season articles for 1876, 1878-1883, 1894-95, 1897, 1904, 1907-08, 1924, 1983. 1898-99, 1910 Cake (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, Harvard is missing lots of schedules. Cake (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Note for anyone willing to do articles on Chicago: when Clark Shaughnessy is called "father of the (modern) T formation," it refers to his time after Tulane, when he is hired at Chicago and he and George Halas have a brainstorming session. It then peaks with his time at Stanford. Cake (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Indiana - We have a new contributor (User: ZCash1104) who has recently been working on Indiana season articles. Since September, he/she has created articles on the following Indiana seasons: 1954-1963, 1965-1966, 1968-1972, 1974, 1976-1978, 1980-1986, 1990, 1992-1995. Words of encouragement needed for this new contributor. 21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well done, and with the draftees too (I am often lazy about those). Given he is now such a face of the sport, it is good to have Lee Corso's career covered. If ZCash is a fan of the school, Bo McMillin certainly falls under my research interests. If one were to ask any southern writer who they take at QB during his era, they would take McMillin. Cake (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is handy, there's already a topic covering a question I was coming to ask. I noticed 1917 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team in the GAN queue and it's a nice article, but I was a bit confused to see the title ("Yellow Jackets") different to what the article actually used ("Golden Tornado"). Should the article be renamed to 1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team? I note that above Dartmouth uses "Indians" prior to 1974 and another article in the GAN queue which is closely related to college football, 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team, also uses the non-current moniker. Jenks24 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I research the era and region in which 1917 Georgia Tech was the capstone. Some of the naming conventions can be confusing. I've been told Dartmouth was officially the Indians then; though the newspapers still call them the "Big Green." Georgia Tech can be called the Yellow Jackets, Golden Tornado, or Engineers (see 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game). In the old days they were called the Golden Tornado even more than the Yellow Jackets, but they use the Yellow Jackets exclusively today. You can also see the article on the 1928 team. Here is a pennant from the 30s with both the Jackets and the Tornado, and here is a typical photo showing why I went with "Golden Tornado" with the early teams. Furman was known as the Hornets, Purple Hurricane, and today the Paladins. The Ole Miss Rebels used to be the "Mississippi Flood;" the Arkansas Razorbacks the "Arkansas Cardinals" and so on. Also, my understanding was Oregon was officially the Webfoots and not the Ducks in the old days. Cake (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps 1917 Georgia Tech football team then? I'll take your word for it about the common and official names, but the current set-up of titling the article with a name that is never used in the article doesn't seem right. I don't want to be pushy about it though, obviously you have put the work in and I am not even a member of this project. Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't take it personally. For consistency's sake, I don't think it is wise to use just "1917 Georgia Tech football team". We usually do that only if the team had no name then, e. g. 1896 Lafayette football team, 1896 Stanford football team. The problem is that for pages, infoboxes, etc made for the team in general, it makes the utmost sense to use the name used today, e. g. Duke Blue Devils football; but for articles on specific past times, there is no reason to have it filled with anachronism, e. g. 1891 Trinity Blue and White football team ("Duke Blue Devils" would be meaningless in 1891). We usually have the name change with time, e. g. 1922 Stanford football team, 1933 Stanford Indians football team, 1980 Stanford Cardinals football team, 1990 Stanford Cardinal football team. I can understand the worry of confusing readers with cases like Georgia Tech or Furman, where there are really multiple nicknames. Maybe one can add an "or" operator as one might for a person, e. g. "William Jefferson "Bill" or "Billy" Clinton" (mere example; idk he's ever called Billy), "1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado or Yellow Jackets football team;" if that is even any less confusing. I appreciate your interest in the subject. Before 1917 Tech; 1899 Sewanee and 1906 Vandy loomed largest in the memory of southerners. Before 1934 Bama, nobody was really close to 1917 Tech outside of maybe 1922 Vandy and 1925 Bama. Cake (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Louisville–West Virginia rivalry[edit]

Louisville–West Virginia rivalry was just recreated. The article was deleted in 2012. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Sure, JW, I have several thoughts: it was a weak "rivalry" in the real world, with little history or tradition, and it failed to demonstrate that it was a notable subject with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources pursuant to WP:GNG at AfD. I slapped a WP:G4 speedy delete request on the article, and notified the AfD closing administrator. That should take care of the problem some time in the next 24 hours. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is worthy of deletion it was never a major rivalry and the teams are no longer in the same conference or currently play each other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc5297 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Spurrier, most wins at two schools[edit]

The lead of Steve Spurrier notes that "Spurrier is the winningest coach in both Florida Gators and South Carolina Gamecocks history, one of the few coaches to top the wins list at two power-conference schools." Spurrier indeed has the most wins of any coach in the history of those two programs, but the second clause of that sentence is problematic. By "power-conference" do we mean the Power Five conferences? And who are there other coaches to top the list at two schools? Are there any others to accomplish this feat considering all the schools in FCS or even all of Division I? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Bear Bryant is another. Most wins at Kentucky and Alabama. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
And Gary Pinkel as the most wins at Missouri and Toledo. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Good question. Now that the Evil Genius belongs to the ages, I did a fairly extensive clean-up and re-write of the article lead last night. I left the "power conference" reference, but I have no particular reference for it (I probably should not have). I think it's more than enough to say that he is the winningest coach in the history of the Florida and South Carolina football programs, and there are already too many of these unsourced fancruft claims in our CFB articles. If no one objects, I would like to delete it from the Spurrier article.
Beat me to the punch on Bear Bryant, all-time wins leader at Alabama and Kentucky (and in the SEC). Last time I checked, however, the Mid-American Conference is a mid-major, not a "power conference" by any definition. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware the MAC is not a power conference. I was just noted any instances I came across. Don't think I have the motivation to investigate this thoroughly right now, but if anyone else wants to look into it, please do. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: "Everyone talks about the greatest coach at Kentucky being Bear Bryant. No, the greatest coach at Alabama was Bear Bryant. The great coach at Kentucky was Fran Curci." - Scot Brantley Cake (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't find others, Mack Brown is a close #2 at both North Carolina and Texas. Cbl62 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
George Welsh is #1 at Virginia and was #1 Navy until Ken Niumatalolo passed him last year. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I was in attendance at Welsh's first home game in Charlottesville in 1982, a humiliating loss to James Madison. Scott Stadium, with seating capacity of about 35,000, was only about two thirds full at kickoff. Welsh's first 25 wins at UVa were much harder than those of Spurrier at either Florida or South Carolina -- and probably Duke, too. If Welsh could win at Navy and Virginia, he could have won anywhere, and he did so with half of the talent Spurrier had. Old school coaching. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You should start a blog or a YouTube channel called "Southern Football Stories with Dirtlawyer". I'd subscribe. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, with you and a couple hundred thousand other paying subscribers, it would almost be a living after expenses. Sadly, I'm no Furman Bisher, Tom McEwen or Tony Barnhart. Plus it's tough to compete with the guys at Every Day Should Be Saturday, who give it all away for free. Selah. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of international college football[edit]

Is there a reason why not to include international college football? I've been researching college football in Japan and I don't see why it can't fall within the scope of of this project. Why must college football only be limited to the US and not include college football from other countries? rick lay95 (talk)

This is a very good question. Everyone, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football#Scope, particularly "This project is limited to college football in the United States under the umbrella of the NCAA and the NAIA...." Under this definition, junior college football would not fall in the scope either, but Category:Junior college football in the United States and much of its contents have been tagged for this project. Now might be a good time to revisit this project's scope. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Granted, I'm not familiar with Japan at all, but I can't imagine that gridiron football is played on universities there at anything more than a club level. In fact, I would be extremely surprised to find that any universities in any other countries except the US and Canada would have varsity gridiron football teams. And, on that related note, what about Canadian college football? Do we cover it here, attempt to split it up and cooperate with WikiProject Canadian football, or leave it entirely up to them? (for the record, they don't appear to cover CIS football very much, if at all, that project appears to be mainly concerned with the professional CFL). The Juco issue I would assume was just an oversight when this project was being set up, I presume? Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
An interesting conversation to which I can offer little as far as support one way or the other; but I want to note one particular Canadian institution, the McGill Redmen football team, has a significant historical overlap with Harvard. Cake (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football states all Canadian football including CIS is in that project's scope. And CIS articles are generally tagged for the project. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
They certainly don't cover it very actively, then, most of the activity on that project is all CFL-related. At any rate, it would probably be a good idea to put it somewhere in the scope that this project covers varsity football only, which we could then use to help eliminate all types of cruft. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
College football here in Japan is a little complex in understanding how it works and what is club level and what is not. Officially, most of the football programs are listed as club activities by the universities. However, there is no official athletics page on Japanese university websites in the same way that it is here in the US. Pretty much all sports at any university are considered club level. But, I've seen the facilities of many teams and I've seen FBS quality weight rooms and facilities. I worked at a school that was an FCS powerhouse, and the Japanese "club" teams have better everything than we did. So while you may call it club, every university sport is club and there is no NCAA equivalent, all sports are typically regulated by a sports league and not a body that governs all college sports. Additionally, the top team in Japan (which utilizes a TRUE playoff) plays the champions of the X-League, Japan's NFL. So the teams are legitimized, in my understanding, by being able to play the top professional teams in the country. Certainly, I can go on and on, but that is the bare minimum of understating of Japanese college football and I think it makes a good case to be part of this Wikiproject. (And just as an FYI, I'm living in Japan so most of what I'm telling you is based of first hand accounts from coaches, players, and my own experience.)rick lay95 (talk)
Rick, I'm well aware that the entire concept of "varsity athletics" is very much a North American phenomenon that simply doesn't exist in other parts of the world. But, quite frankly, the same thing could be said about gridiron football, too. My experience has been that most gridiron football leagues outside of the US and Canada (even supposedly "high-level" ones) are strictly amatuer-level stuff. Funny story: I had a relative who went over to Europe to live in Finland for an extended period of time, and while he was over there, he was asked to join the Finland national American football team (despite being 5'8", 170 pounds dripping wet, and having never played a down of organized football in his life). His response was, basically, "Huh?" to which they responded, "Hey, if you actually know the rules, you'll automatically be one of the better players on the team by default!" My concern here (and, again, I'm speaking in generalities here, as I know nothing specific about Japan) is that even international leagues like "Japan's NFL" are still probably fifth-rate football leagues, with a lower level of play then Juco ball (or even high school ball). Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There's another question about notability of Japanese college football. How decked out their facilities are don't mean anything toward that. What means something is the coverage in reliable third-party sources. But the right question here is for whatever is notable, do we want that to be covered by this project, or should it remain in Wikipedia:WikiProject American football, which is for central concepts about the game and anything about leagues, teams, players, coaches, etc that isn't covered by one of three more-focused American football projects, this one, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I was using the facilities as an example to prove that college teams in Japan are not bush league semi-pro teams, but rather on the same level as USC, Alabama, and Michigan when it comes to funds provided to the program and how they operate. And if you are looking for reliable third-party sources, then be prepared to learn Japanese or get a translator because not many, if any, American news outlets follow this. Heck, even the mighty ESPN could care less about Princeton playing the top team in Japan last March. rick lay95 (talk)
But, are the facilities football-specific? Or are they general University athletic facilities that are used by other athletes, too. (BTW, I agree with JW that facilities don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things, I'm just interested for my own information). Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
At Ritsumeikan University they have a four story building specifically for football, with three artificial turf practice fields. rick lay95 (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is an interesting meeting of Japanese and American college football: Legacy Bowl. The game seems to have gotten some decent coverage. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I felt the coverage was lacking. ESPN never mentioned it, nor did any other sports network, most of what you can find is from the Princeton website and blogs, but you can't even find a video of the game or the stats. Plus, it was never broadcasted in the US at all to my knowledge (and I called ESPN and Princeton asking about it). rick lay95 (talk)
I found the 2015 game result with a little bit of googling: [1]. Nobody even bothered to update the Legacy Bowl article after it was actually played. From the article, it appears to have ended in a scoreless tie. It did not; Princeton defeated the Japanese host team 37–6. That really tells you all you need to know about the competitiveness of Japanese college football. Princeton, despite the pregame hype on the Legacy Bowl website hasn't been nationally relevant in American college football since at least the early 1950s, arguably earlier. The modern Ivy League plays a Division I FCS schedule, but does not participate in the FCS playoff. One can only imagine the outcome of any modern Ivy League team playing a top-25 team -- heck, even a top-50 team -- from one of the Division I FBS "power conferences". In modern parlance, the Ivy League programs aren't even legitimate "mid-majors". Where does that leave the best Japanese college team that just got stomped 37–6 by Princeton? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I seriously doubt whether Japanese media coverage of Japanese college football rises to that of American college football in the United States, or even to the much lower level of Canadian media coverage of CIS college football in Canada. I also doubt that WP:CFB (whose members are almost all Americans based in North America, have either the familiarity, the interest, or the Japanese language skills to competently write articles on the subject) is the correct venue for such an expansion of Wikipedia coverage, assuming such an expansion of coverage is even appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Hahahaha. For all the money they spend, to look like this. . . Hmm, reminds me of a few B1G programs I could name. . . Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: According to the B1G, an Ivy League team did play against a "power conference" team in 2014 - and won! Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It's been a long time since Army fielded a nationally competitive team. Navy went to the Cotton Bowl with Roger Staubach in the early 1960s, had a revival under George Welsh in the late '70s/early '80s, and again under Charlie Weatherbie in the '90s, and has been competitive in the new millennium. Army remains mired at a lower level; maybe AAC membership will inspire a turnaround. As for the Big Ten's treatment of the AAC as a "power conference," well, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana and Purdue want to get to 6 FBS wins for bowl eligibility too. Gee whiz, is that Nebraska I see at the bottom of the B10 division -- how did that happen? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Except that Army isn't going to the AAC - only Navy is, Army is staying indy. And, the B1G isn't counting all AAC teams as "power" teams only certain select ones - you know like 2–10 Uconn. Oh, and they're counting Air Force, too. Crazy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to derisively mock the Japanese college teams, but we should simply acknowledge that the quality of Japanese college play is not on par with American college football. And why should it be? It's relatively new, it is not a traditional Japanese sport, and the best Japanese athletes are attracted to other sports like baseball, sumo, and swimming. I applaud the effort, but that does not change the present reality. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
All right, all right! I'll < / trolling > for the night. But, yeah, when you look that under-sized and slow against Princeton, of all teams, you know you're in trouble! Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
In terms of the Legacy Bowl, I don't see how Princeton won that game, but now that I have footage I can look at it. To be honest the win by Princeton was an anomaly, based on a number of factors. Regardless, the Legacy Bowl didn't get the attention it deserved. What I'm not hearing is why can't Japanese football (being an example) be part of the college football wikiproject? If we rule out the fact that the game is played in Japan and not the US, then what is the difference exactly between Princeton and Ritsumeikan or Kobe and Carroll College or Kinki and Montana State? What exactly makes them different to the point that they should not be under the project? Other than being played outside of the US? rick lay95 (talk)
Rick, please feel free to adopt the Legacy Bowl series as its "steward"; as long as it includes an American college team, it's within the scope of WP:CFB, and we should recognize that. God knows someone needs to adopt Princeton football on-wiki too. It has a proud history, but most of it was before 1950. When the Ivy League decided to forego bowl games, that was pretty much the end of big-time Ivy League football. I respect the league's choice to emphasize academics over big-time college sports, and they are clearly playing the sport at a different level in 2015. That's not to say Ivy League football doesn't have rabid fans and a national following, but the Columbia Lions are never going to play for a national championship in my lifetime. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans categories[edit]

Talk:Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans covers the outcome of multiple page move requests related to the university's rebranding campaign. Broadly, Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans foo → Little Rock Trojans foo was proposed, but the Arkansas–Little Rock format was preserved per WP:COMMONNAME.

With that context, could someone please review or comment on Category:Little Rock Trojans? Appears there are multiple instances of Little Rock Trojans foo which should(?) be Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans foo. Cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what we have here is re-categorization that goes against the consensus in that proposed move. It should all be reverted. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Attempted complete fix. Possibility of errors due to the quantity of changes. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cake for cake[edit]

Cake Decorator.jpg

Over the past year, User:MisterCake has started hundreds of new season articles, significantly increasing the scope of this project's coverage. Cake's efforts include some 70 All-SEC, 44 LSU, 38 Georgia Tech, 38 SIAA/Southern Conference, 36 All-Southern, 34 Sewanee, 23 All-PAC 10/12, 14 Kentucky, 11 Texas, 9 Georgetown, 9 Stetson, 8 Notre Dame, 8 Ole Miss, 8 Mississippi A&M, 5 Illinois, 3 Columbia, 3 Duke, and 3 Cumberland team/season articles. For his efforts, the Wikipedia baker is making some cake for Cake. Thanks for your passion for college football, Cake! Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How sweet; why thank you cbl. A good looking cake too. I don't see poppy seeds or red velvet or any tricks for a fussy eater. I do my best to research football in the Southeast before there was a Southeastern Conference, but will also offer my help to any severely lacking history, such as Rockne's Irish. I got a bit exhausted trying to finish the All-PAC teams, but that is still on the back burner. If I may call attention to the most notable of the above region and era, any help with the 1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team is much appreciated. The war made it so the Bulldogs did not play, and as a result Tech had the full force of the state. Plus for whatever reason Heisman really got things going since 1915. The '17 backfield made things almost unfair. Cake (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Amazing, amazing effort. Can't believe the dedication! As I trudge through Notre Dame's missing season articles, I am more in awe as I see the effort it takes to create 1 season, let alone what Cake has done......Maybe candles should be added to your Cake, Cbl. I don't think there is room, however!...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Occidental–Whittier football rivalry[edit]

I created this rivalry earlier this week. Last night, another user alleged that the rivalry is not notable. Though it is a D-3 rivalry, it has been played over 100 times, and there is a trophy between the two schools. pbp 15:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • PBP, is there significant coverage of the series as a rivalry in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday's Michigan–Michigan State[edit]

There are now two different fledgling articles for yesterday's Michigan–Michigan State game: Michigan State Miracle and 2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game. Both have been AfD'd in a single discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I just noticed the AfD is mis-sorted into the AfDs for association football/soccer, not American football-related AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Football pool"[edit]

We have an article at football pool about soccer, but the fantasy sports page is located at Fantasy football (association). There doesn't seem to be a football pool page, unlike Fantasy football (American). Shouldn't there be a football football pool article? -- (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

New articles - help appreciated[edit]

These are new articles on which help and/or opinions would be appreciated:

Cbl62 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cbl, thanks for your work here, as always. First thought: the tables are sorted improperly. They should be sort chronologically ascending, not descending. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Originally, I had the rushing one oldest first, but then I switched 'cause it looked better that way. OK with me either way. Cbl62 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, these look like the leaders in the FBS and historical equivalents, not all college football. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
NCAA official records are limited to "major" colleges, which I have tried to follow. If there are errors, happy to discuss. Do not think these charts should be cluttered with stats or minor colleges. Cbl62 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists suggests that chronologically descending lists are improper. Also, Featured List examples of college football lists, e.g. List of Heisman Trophy winners and List of Alabama Crimson Tide head football coaches, are sorted in ascending order. My latter point above was not that there were errors nor that we should include lower division leaders here, but that the articles are mistitled. List of college football yearly rushing leaders should be named List of NCAA Division I FBS football yearly rushing leaders or maybe List of majir college football yearly rushing leaders. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: I took your advice in renaming all three articles. I have also re-ordered the receivers article to reflect the oldest first system. Will re-order the other two as time permits. Thanks for your input. Additional thoughts welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
All 3 articles have now been re-ordered as suggested. I have also started two additional "yearly leaders" lists as follows:
There need to be limits on how many such lists we have. Any others that folks here think would be appropriate? The NCAA record book includes annual leaders for tackles (total, solo, tackles for loss, sacks) and pass defense (INTs, passes defended). Cbl62 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Once upon a time the kicking and punting stats were much heralded as well (e. g. Buck Flowers, Bill Fincher, Red Weaver, Pat O'Dea). Cake (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Cbl62 (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

COI issue at Fred Biletnikoff Award article[edit]

An editor with a probable conflict of interest has added and re-added material to Fred Biletnikoff Award with promotional language and excessive detail, all sourced to the Belitnikov Award website. Can others take a look here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the content. Aside from potential COI, the re-added material language is a copyvio copied largely from this site: and Cbl62 (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I also let a warning on the user's talk page: User talk:Biletnikoffaward. Cbl62 (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Cbl62, thanks for jumping on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

College colors[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:College color/data#Improve redundancy and verifiability regarding the maintenance of college colors used on pages related to this project.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about an edit.[edit]

On the 2015 Temple Owls football team this edit[2] added a "tool tip" to underline with a "?" the date of non-Saturday games. Is this needed or is this a way to rehash a former problem on another page?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Michigan State Miracle[edit]

There is currently a discussion going on here in regards to Michigan State's miraculous win over rival school Michigan University on 10/17/15. Anyone who would like to participate and share their opinion is welcome, but please make haste because the AFD is already about a week old! If you wish to simply view the article itself, the link has been included in the title of this section. Kind regards, Stubbleboy 04:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Schipper[edit]

An AfD has been opened that may be of interest to members of this project. It concerns College Football Hall of Fame inductee Ron Schipper. Anyone wishing to participate in the discussion, on either side, can find the AfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Schipper. Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Some merges[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1890 Kansas Jayhawks football team and also to help me with what to do to the running interference page. Cake (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming question[edit]

Pictogram voting info.svg Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Long Beach State Dirtbags baseball#Official vs. Common nickname regarding the name of the article. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan 20:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox[edit]

Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Miracle on Techwood Drive"[edit]

If the article "Michigan State Miracle" was deleted, it's likely that the newly created article Miracle on Techwood Drive should be deleted too. I would nominate it myself, but I'm unregistered. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to post on this same issue. Anyone want to take the lead on an AfD? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm still being called a mean bastard for having commented on the last one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Prod'ed it. Let's see if it takes. JohnInDC (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If not, nominate it for AfD with the usual rationale for newly created stand-alone articles for just-played regular season games: not notable per WP:EVENT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:TOOSOON, with alternate outlets for content in season and rivalry articles unless and until continuing coverage is established. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. (Boy, are you one mean bastard.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, John. I've been contemplating changing my user name to "MeanOldBastard1". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, PROD didn't do the trick. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech football game. JohnInDC (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

**Coach navbox tenure years being changed**[edit]

All – a user is mass-"fixing" college baseball coach navboxes to be XXXX–XX year formats, even though all college and professional sports' WikiProject consensus is to use the XXXX–XXXX when referring to playing and coaching year spans. I could use some help reverting the changes back to their original state, the edits on them can be found here. Please assist, it is hundreds of incorrect reversions. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Important to remember that the eight-digit format is now part of WP:MOS and in fact some recent discussions have advocated eliminating all cases of the 6-digit format. Rikster2 (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jrcla2 and Rikster2: Please link to an example and/or provide the name of the editor making these edits. With recent changes to MOS, this should be a settled formatting matter with regard to all multi-year tenures in infoboxes and navboxes for athletes and coaches. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: The link I provided above is the editing history of the user in question. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Missed that. Looks like it's under control now. When a gnomer gets several dozen of their edits reverted, and then receives a couple of talk page messages with links to the guidelines, that usually sends a message. Face-smile.svg Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I just reverted all of the baseball coach navboxes but the help of User:Pvmoutside, and Rikster2 took care of the professional baseball manager navboxes. I think that should do it, given the volume of reversion and numerous editors telling User:Colonies Chris about the date format. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Question In reviewing the edits posted above, wouldn't this be a case of misusing AWB? Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably not, EJ. The usual AWB/auto-editor prohibition that gets some gnomers in trouble is the one against making auto-edits that do not manifest visual changes, like replacing the HTML ndash with the ASCII character ndash. Those types of changes may only be made using an auto-editor when the user is making other substantive changes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My changes were in line with the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Chronological_items


  • A pure year–year range is written using an en dash and the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits:
  • Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06).
  • A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons.

Firstly, the MoS only says may use 8-digit format if it is a range of sports seasons - not must. Secondly, are these ranges really sports seasons? - managers can come and go at any time, not necessarily coinciding with specific sports seasons. Thirdly, space is at a premium in templates, so where there is no ambiguity, why not abbreviate to 2 digits? Fourthly, please provide a link to the discussion where this consensus was reached; this (obviously) is not something I was aware of. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Colonies Chris, yes, these ranges really are sport seasons. Mid-season coaching changes are fairly common, but even in these cases we are still talking about a range of seasons, cf. Template:South Carolina Gamecocks football coach navbox, where Steve Spurrier's tenure starts in the 2005 season and extends into the 2015 season, even though it has ended before the completion of this current season. The MoS does say may and not must, but whatever the case, all of these navboxes ought to follow the same formatting standard. The consensus here extends seems to extend to all American college sports and major North American pro sports leagues such as the NFL, CFL, NBA, and MLB. Can anyone locate the discussions about this? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Relevant history in a nutshell - The final discussion was here, which ended in a formal determination of consensus per the linked RfC. User:Rikster2 played lead on the RfC, in order to clarify a perceived ambiguity regarding the preferred 8-digit format for multiple sports seasons included within a single coach or player tenure (e.g., 1995–2014). There were previous discussions on this point, as well as an earlier determination of consensus regarding the use of the 6-digit format for a single sports season straddling two calendar years (e.g., "the 2015–16 season"), as often happens in basketball and other winter sports in the northern hemisphere. I think this is very much a settled matter, especially in light of Rikster's RfC on point. The may vs. must digression is a red herring; virtually no guideline in the MOS is characterized as "must". The strongest language used is "should". "May" is used in this case to distinguish 8-digit sports tenure usage from the more generalized 6-digit rule for other tenures. The basic idea behind the sports tenure exception was to visually distinguish and clarify the difference between a single sports season that straddled two calendar years and a multi-year coach or player tenure. I hope this helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link DL. I remember this MOS debate came close to having numerous college sports' Wikipedia contributors quit (thankfully for all of us, they didn't). Jrcla2 (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Positional succession boxes[edit]

I noticed that someone has created succession boxes for "Ohio State Buckeyes Starting Tailbacks" and "Ohio State Buckeyes Football Season MVPs". See, e.g., Derek Combs. Figured I'd post here in case anyone wants to take this on. Cbl62 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Whack! These need to be removed per long-standing consensus that we would not create CFB starting position succession boxes or navboxes for any position other than quarterback. I suggest gently informing the template creator of same before they create a whole family of the damn things. As I recall, we deleted a bunch of these four or five years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we're a little late on this, the editor who added these did so in 2006 lol [3] [4]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently so, WO-9. I remember the editor now: he was adamant about keeping those damn succession boxes for Ohio State players. He hasn't edited since 2010. I just deleted a bunch of the succession boxes. Feel free to do likewise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have removed similar succession boxes from many college football bio articles in recent years. Everyone, please feel free to "whack" these as you come across them. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Cart before the horse?[edit]

See Category:2016 Southeastern Conference football season. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup. We generally wait until the end of the current season before creating this next year's season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy, 101[edit]

Apparently, we have Kansas–Kansas State football rivalry, Sunflower Showdown, Kansas–Kansas State football all-time results, and Kansas – Kansas State men's basketball all-time results. Do we really need all of these articles? Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we AfD the All time results pages as redundant. Consolidate the football and basketball pages into one for each sport.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Excellent ideas, guys. Just link to the pages where you want me to vote! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Strategy and concepts[edit]

I have been making some additions and changes to the strategy template and concept template. It seems one of the most neglected areas of these parts of the wiki, so I would appreciate any help. Most difficult might be the line between concept and strategy. Cake (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


There are two templates for college football teams (Providence Friars football and Long Beach State 49ers) that are up for deletion. If you have interest in such things, the discussions can be found here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 4. Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and created some stub articles for Template:Long Beach State 49ers football navbox and Template:Pacific Tigers football navbox, so there are now at least 6 active links in both of them (5 articles, plus the main program article). Unfortunately, CFDW doesn't have any information for Milwaukee or Providence. Does anyone have any type of sources for the season schedules of those two programs? Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

2014 Georgia Bulldogs[edit]

I am new around here, but I have been a longtime reader of Wikipedia's articles in all subjects. I recently noticed the 2014 Georgia Bulldogs football team article claims Georgia had all its 2014 wins vacated as a result of NCAA violations. However, no sources are cited for this claim, and I can find no evidence of this when I did my own research. Can a source be provided to support these assertions? If not, then those references should be removed from the article. I just wanted to help the Wikipedia community out by bringing this to their attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. The edits have been reverted and the account who added them has been notified. Welcome! ~ Richmond96 TC 18:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny issue with categories[edit]

I recently created Category:NAIA football navigational boxes, but I don't see it in either of its two parent categories Category:American college football navigational boxes and Category:NAIA football. Have others had this sort of issue? Any idea what's going on? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

College football statistical leaders[edit]

We discussed these pages a year or two ago: Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders, Mississippi State Bulldogs football statistical leaders, Alabama Crimson Tide football statistical leaders, etc. The consensus was they don't violate Wikipedia:NOTSTATSBOOK. However, one editor, rather than posing the question here if he wanted to reopen the discussion, has just decided to put deletion notices en masse across the pages. Thoughts? Jhn31 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You are violating WP:Canvassing. Notices must be neutral....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
WilliamJE, it's seem pretty nitpicky, if not outright false, to make an accusation of canvassing about a post to a relevant WikiProject that assumes support for a previous consensus reached at that WikiProject. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
For anyone interested in the discussion, the issue is now at AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane Green Wave football statistical leaders. Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Chic Harley and "Script Ohio"[edit]

I just removed an unreferenced claim that a tribute to Chic Harley was the only time that The Ohio State University Marching Band changed its "Script Ohio" formation to spell "Chic" instead. The claim had been a part of the article since it was first written in 2006, but I didn't see one of the original references supporting it. If someone else can find a source that supports it, help would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Huon, according to the official OSU website, the OSU band performed the script Chic on "several occasions," including a Michigan game where harley was in attendance: [5]. Google search: "Chic Harley" script Ohio. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Defunct conferences[edit]

Should defunct conferences like the Southwest Conference or Big Eight Conference have their own navboxes? I noticed a while ago that the CUSA navbox is on the SWC page. And if the SWC or Big Eight have navboxes listing the teams as former members, should those pages link to the teams article e.g. Rice Owls? If the answer is yes should the Big XII link to Nebraska, should the SoCon link to Alabama etc.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Bluejay, in one word: No. It's overkill to link all of the former members of a conference. And especially so for the old Southern Conference, which I believe had 40 or 50 members over time. For currently existing conference navboxes, the emphasis should be on the current members, not muddling it up with links to universities that left the conference 83 years ago (like Alabama and SoCon). For defunct conferences like the old Southwest Conference, I seriously doubt whether anachronistic links should be included to the navboxes for the Current conferences where the SWC's former members now compete -- The American Athletic Conference (2), Big XII (5), and SEC (2). All we are doing with these overlinks is contributing to the bottom-of-the-page cruft which already burdens too many of our sports articles per WP:OVERLINK. We should not be trying to link to every tangentially related article, but to the most important related articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dirtlawyer. This is why we have categories for former conference members, and for ones with a really varied history a list (List of former Southern Conference members). That and the various articles on conference realignment provide plenty of context and links to related articles as they already exist. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay fair enough. I don't have an opinion either way it was an observation. But why do we have a CUSA navbox on the bottom of the SWC page? And BTW the SEC navbox and football navbox links these teams UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Bluejay. I have removed the Sewanee, Georgia Tech and Tulane links from the SEC navbox, and removed the SEC football navbox from those team pages. Those teams have not been members of the SEC since 1940, 1964 and 1965, respectively -- 75, 51 and 50 years ago. This history should obviously be discussed in the history sections of the conference and team articles, but we really need to do a better job of policing our navboxes. Again, the operating principle should be we link to the most important articles, not every tangentially related article. Sometimes it is hard to explain editorial judgment to newbies, and even some long-time editors, but I remind everyone that Wikipedia is supposed to be a general interest encyclopedia, not a fan blog, and not a scrapbook of someone's CFB memories. When we cannot distinguish between the most important links, and those links of tangential importance, we do our readers no favors by burying first-tier links among lesser ones. And that applies to links in article text, too, per WP:OVERLINK. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
How do I get my new article to be noticed if I don't slap it on every conceivable navbox? Wait, I've seen some of the viewer stats, this either doesnt help or nobody outside of WP editors know that navboxes exist or how to uncollapse them.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, I think your change of the SEC football navbox is well-reasoned. But when you make an editorial change like this on a navbox, you need to consider what changes need to be made to all of the other navboxes of that same class to maintain consistency. We have former members listed in a number of other navboxes found at Category:NCAA Division I FBS by conference navigational boxes and Category:NCAA Division I FCS by conference navigational boxes. In the case of Template:Big 12 Conference football navbox, we have former members who have left within the past five years or less and were members for what is still a majority of the conference's existence. I'm not sure what the right move is there, but it needs to be considered. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you meant to imply that it is DL's job to make everything consistent himself when an editor makes a change. It's a good question to ask if the project needs to consider other similar changes. However, we should applaud bold edits that are improvements, and then worry about the inconsistencies in other areas, instead of discouraging piecemeal progress.—Bagumba (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
And I didn't take JW's comment that way, Bags. But I am looking at the other conference football navboxes as we speak, and performing a little surgery, consistent with my comments above and below. Of course, I am only one member of this project, and I expect some other folks will want to weigh in on this topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Then no harm either way. We all agree that it's better to have things inconsistently good as opposed to consistently bad.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, JW, and the circumstances of all conferences and their former members are not the same. Conference USA was/is, in reality, a direct successor to the old Metro Conference. The Big XII really is a direct successor to old Big Eight. And these are factors we should consider in deciding what links to include. Under those circumstances, I would suggest it is appropriate to keep the link to the predecessor conference; there is room for nuance here. That said, none of the Division I football programs lack for navboxes or links to related articles. I think the strongest argument is to exclude former conference members from football navboxes, and only include current members per WP:OVERLINK. Obviously, conference history should be discussed in the team and conference articles themselves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, surgery is now complete. All links to former conference members have been removed from the football navboxes for currently existing conferences, and all former conference navboxes have been removed from football team articles. Interestingly, someone had already removed/replaced the former conference navboxes on about 80 to 90% of the affected football team articles.
However, I don't know quite know what to do with the conference football navboxes for the WAC and former Big East -- in which all of the members listed are former members because the conferences no longer exist. If we are going to keep these navboxes, and I assume we will because they tie together various season articles, etc., of these former conferences, then we need to define how these navboxes (and any others created for former conferences in the future) should be used with regard to their former conference members. Thinking off the top of my head, they definitely should not be placed at the bottom of former member team pages, and maybe the former members should be deleted from these navboxes, too. Anyone? Anyone? Buhler? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, I actually was suggesting that Dirtlawyer take the lead on ensuring consistency around his initial edit. This didn't need to happen immediately, but it should have happened within a reasonable time frame (say maybe a few days), and it has. Dirtlawyer has seen to it. When it comes to editing standardized, dynamic structures like infoboxes, navboxes, categories, and even articles that are a member of a clear analogous set, we absolutely should be thinking about consistency from the outset. The idea of parallelism really ought to be a core principle of Wikipedia. It's necessary to ensure objectivity and usability; i.e. that you will find things where you would expect them to be. I see pluses and minuses to Dirtlawyer's move here. I'm not sure it was a slam-dunk improvement. But at the very least, we have maintained consistency with his followup editing. If we encourage local improvement without any regard to global consistency, we end up with a huge mess of forked formatting and standardization. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I totally get that, but there is also paralysis by analysis too. With your saying "reasonable time frame", I suspect that we are more or less in agreement on things, and DL always leaves room on his plate anyways :-) —Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: If the navs aren't on the team pages, at some point someone will think WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and place them there. As the former teams are presumably already linked on the conference page, it has no need to be duplicated in the navbox. Remember, navboxes are a nice way to group what would otherwise be in "See also". In addition to former conferences, another former affiliation in team navboxes that cause clutter is the list of former stadiums. Its inclusion causes {{UCLA Bruins football navbox}} (and many other former teams' navs) to be part of the navbox clutter at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, even though UCLA hasn't called it home in over 30 years.—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and 2015 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings[edit]

Actually, it's taking the guideline of WP:OVERLINK to the extreme at 2015 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings and not having enough links. I'd imagine most readers go to the current week (or some specific week of interest), find a team they want to read about, but are SOL if the team wasn't ranked for the first time that week. OVERLINK has been interpreted to only have one link to each team in the table. So you either search the whole table for that link, open another tab and just type the name in, or say "forget it". However, OVERLINK allows that "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, ..." I think we'd be better off linking every entry in this table, as I'd imaging few read it serially from left to right, or read it completely.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I agree with this 100%, I've been thinking about this same thing for quite a while as well. I am one of the readers who have a hard time searching for links that should be readily available. I hate searching for links because as you said, not every team was ranked the first week and may have been ranked much later in the season. Therefore I'm all in favor of making this article easier to access rather than keeping it difficult. Obvious use of WP:IAR JOJ Hutton 02:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And IAR isn't even needed, as the guideline already allows for exceptions in tables.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, agreed. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well as you said Bagumba, OVERLINK has been interpreted to include only one link. IAR was just one argument to combat those who feel that only one link should be on an article. Actually I find that OVERLINK is widely misused across all of Wp, not just in tables and charts.--JOJ Hutton 15:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

With 2 polls, 25 teams and 10 weeks already, that's about 500 entries (then there are the dropouts) to link. Is there a WP:WIKIGNOME among us? In the meantime, Zaqwert, who appears to be the most active editor of the page, might agree to at least start linking all of the new entires for the remaining weeks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Tracking new articles[edit]

Does anyone know of a tool that would allow us to track/monitor newly-created articles that fall within the scope of this project? Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/College football articles by quality_log. But that depends on new articles being tagged with the project banner on their talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's better than any other tool I was aware of. Anyone to extend it back more than the default of ~ 5 days. Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the article history, can you see earlier runs of the report. Just to clarify, the articles under the "Assessed" subheadings could be old articles that were just tagged for the project. I find untagged articles more than a year old all the time. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Understood. It's definitely not a perfect tool, but it is helpful. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

1951 CFHOF Induction Class[edit]

In 1951, the College Football Hall of Fame was established. At that time, an inaugural class of 53 coaches and players were inducted. In the eyes of the experts at the time, these were the 53 most significant individuals in the first 70 or so years of college football history. For a project like ours, these 53 persons are among our most important subjects. I pulled together the list today with the current article quality ratings and was surprised to find that only one of those 53 articles has reached FA status, and one other has reached GA status. Ten are rated "C" class, and the remaining 41 are either Stubs or Start class articles. Should anyone wish to adopt one of these pioneers and legends, the complete list with quality ratings can be found here: User:Cbl62/Early CFHOF Inductees. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Had already been trying to bolster Knute Rockne and John Heisman's articles. I did a bit for Dan McGugin, Bo McMillin, Bill Alexander, and Hector Cowan's articles. Amos Alonzo Stagg's article is not far from an upgrade in class. Cake (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Rybkovich has been doing some great work on Andy Smith and Brick Muller. Cake (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@MisterCake: I can't take the credit for Muller. But can definitely add. Ill also expand Pop Warner. PS C class seems like enough info for an encyclopedia type entry, as in we need to get them up to C but not being above is not a problem in most cases. Or do you think we should still strive for higher? Rybkovich (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Strive for FA of course; but I concur the biggest hump to get over is usually start to C, and that it would be nice for any big name to be at least a C. The stubs and starts need the most work. Cake (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Source inconsistency[edit]

Could someone give me some advice. I have been on a kick of improving Hayden Epstein's article over the last few days since uberring someone who seemed to be him last Friday. Today, I came accross inconsistent sources that I could use some help interpreting. One source says he missed his first two field goals before booting a school record 56-yarder. Another says he missed his final attempt of the season. A third source says he was 5-7 on the season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bowl games as tenants[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Nissan Stadium#Tenants which may be of interest to group members here. At issue is the inclusion of bowl games as tenants but not, in this case, the CMA Music Festival, though it can also include things like the Super Bowl, WWE, conference championship games, conference tournaments, etc. Any additional perspectives and feedback would be welcome. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Joe Moore (American football coach)[edit]

This article was recently created but I'm not sure it passes. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • There is no presumption of notability for an assistant coach. The issue would be governed by WP:GNG. A quick google searches turns up (1) this claiming he was "Heralded as football's 'greatest line coach" and that he successfully sued Notre Dame for age discrimination, (2) this from CBS Sports indicating that he is the namesake of a new award for college football's best offensive line (starting in 2015), (3) this from the Chicago Tribune saying he was "a man who defined offensive line coaching in college football for two decades and was famous for the way he defied Notre Dame in the courtroom," and (4) this book written about his lawsuit against Notre Dame. Article needs improving, but I'd say he appears to be a GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

UB Bulls Football Records[edit]

What does everybody think of this article should this be redirected to UB football stat leaders?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bluejay, yes, I think it should probably be redirected after the MAC conference table is moved to the main article, and the rather large table for all-time win-loss records vs. BCS conference teams is deleted -- why editors would even want to track those individual games given the abysmal 2–33 cumulative record is a bit of a mystery. Not quite sure what to do with the overtime game table; it's probably noteworthy given the relatively large number of overtime games the Bulls have played, but it could easily be summarized with a sentence or two in the text of the main article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Guys, someone created this article a couple of months ago, all of the content is originally from the main program article and was split off here. After seeing this a little while ago, my original intent was to try to re-purpose this as a "series records" article, a la Michigan Wolverines football series records, UMass Minutemen football series records, etc. Unfortunately, I've been rather busy in real life lately, and it has become one of those projects that has simply gotten back-burnered. I'll try to see if I can get to it over the Thanksgiving holiday, but, unfortunately, I can't make any promises. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought we agreed some time ago that we were not going to create these all-time records vs. all opponents lists such as these: Category:College football all-time series records . . . we seem increasingly determined to create CFB list articles that are obvious violations of WP:NOTSTATS. This really needs to be discussed at length. I'm not sure why we would even try to compete with and/or duplicate the efforts of accurate and well-researched CFB stats services like College Football Data Warehouse et al. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is the discussion in question. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is not a competition with CFBDW but an outright exploitation of data, if not plagiarism. Sure this information can be found on other websites as well as media guides. However, some such as Texas A&M's follows the exact same format as CFBDW.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
A standalone list should meet WP:LISTN, which requires that the grouping is discussed by independent sources. Even if it is notable, WP:PAGEDECIDE advises: "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." It's debatable to me if it meets LISTN. Rivalries would meet coverage for a series with an individual team, but non-rivaries usually just mention the overall record in passing, We could merge it into the team's main football article, but WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT become concerns if there is too much stats.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Exactly right. And various CFB editors have continued to push the envelope of WP:NOTSTATS (a very bad idea, IMO), and as Jweiss11 predicted several months ago, we are now seeing the creation of more of these all-time win-loss records vs. all opponents stats lists for lesser programs, with an even-less-rational basis for creating and keeping them per WP:GNG. Sorry, guys, but we're lying to ourselves, and no one outside of WP:CFB is going to agree with us. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: Thanks for finding and linking that recent discussion. I believe there have also been previous discussions regarding the same or similar types of CFB stats-based lists in the past. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as NOTSTATS goes, please see this excellent comment from Cbl62 as to the accurate nature and interpretation of NOTSTATS. In general, I think that in all list-class CFB articles, we need to do a better job of utilizing introductory and explanatory text, rather than just relying on large tables of data. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"better job of utilizing introductory and explanatory text": Typically only happens during a push for WP:FL, I imagine.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay mentioned Buffalo Bulls football statistical leaders. I don't think it needs to be a standalone, but maybe deserves a partial merge? If so, if we could get a style guide or even an existing article we could reference as a prototypical standard, it'd be much easier to just merge and redirect without having to go through overhead of AfD. Also, the style guide could be used as a reference for editors, and hopefully minimize whack-a-mole with snuffing these out. Problem is always that a reader sees an existing article, and figures they should represent and do the same for their favorite school.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But then I guess Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane Green Wave football statistical leaders means there is consensus for school stats leader lists.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Or, it could mean that that particular AfD discussion was completely dominated by CFB editors, without the acid test of outside participation by non-CFB sports editors and non-sports editors generally. If you want a different outcome, with nearly identical content, take a look at [[6]]. As I recall, there were several AfDs for NFL team records that resulted in "delete". The justification for lists of team stats has always been vulnerable to attack for failing to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NLIST and for violating WP:NOTSTATS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I could envision LISTN going either way, depending on one's interpretation of "discussed as a group". Even if we concede that it is notable, a more relevant discussion involves WP:PAGEDECIDE and whether it's better to just include it in the team's article as opposed to needing a standalone list.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL[edit]

For those interested in navboxes, there is an RfC about the use of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL that you may want to participate in at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_navbox_requirements.—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting game in NAIA[edit]

In NAIA play today, [7] #1 Morningside (Iowa) beat #16 Saint Xavier (Ill.) by a score of 75-69 in 4OT. Might be worth checking against scoring records to see if it fits anyplace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • more Highest scoring game in NAIA FCS history ref.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving Brown Field (Valparaiso University) to Brown Field[edit]

You are invited to discuss the proposed move of Brown Field (Valparaiso University) to Brown Field. Please go to Talk:Brown Field (Valparaiso University)#Requested move 21 November 2015. Fbdave (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited...[edit]

Pictogram voting info.svg Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Charles Erickson#Merger proposal regarding the issue of whether or not the two subjects involved are the same person. Thanks! 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 03:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Lists of annual conference standings[edit]

For the Pac-12, I can see having lists for conference champions (List of Pacific-12 Conference football champions). Do we also want a list of every year's standings (List of Pacific-12 Conference football standings) or a breakdown of each school's finish by year (Pacific-12 Conference football statistics)?—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

‎Occidental–Whittier football rivalry[edit]

the person who made this page is very harsh to the page. he tried to hide the discussion in the deletions page, then he asked his friend drmies to ban forever me when i tried to nominate it and close the nomination without discusing it. and he tries to prevent any discussion about it.

obviously he thinks he is the page's owner and there is nothing a beginner like me can do about. pls someone who is a bigname editor can look into it? I thank you. (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the editor he's talking about, and if you want to discuss my interaction with this IP (likely a sock of User:ChasHB, just shoot me an e-mail and slap a "You've got mail" on my page. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occidental–Whittier football rivalry, which was closed as disruptive. Since the AfD, I got myself a new LAPL library card, enabling me to add some LA Times references to the article that ensure it passes GNG. pbp 23:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

2016 Conference of the Month proposal[edit]

I had an idea and I don't know if this has been attempted before but I thought it would be cool to have a "conference of the month" campaign. I am not suggesting ignoring other articles or issues that may arise during this time period, but this could focus attention to the lack of certain articles/lists and other missing data we have. Also, I am not suggesting editors focus only on one conference. Participation is completely voluntary, and all in good spirited editing, and if an editor gets busy/finds another issue no hard feelings should be felt. But I believe with 12-14 teams in a conference the opportunity to focus on different programs may help with fatigue or writers block. My proposal consists of the following:

  • Creating and Auditing current articles of the program, its facilities, coaches, and players.
  • Creating and auditing the status of articles, including individual seasons articles, head coaches, and notable players, pertaining to all current and former teams (e.g. SEC-Sewanee pre-1940, University of Chicago pre-1939, but not GT because they would be covered under ACC, or Idaho when it covers the Pac 12 but when we cover the Sun Belt)
  • Creating/Conforming/promoting to FL lists whether that be Category:Lists of college football seasons, Category:Lists of college football head coaches, or Category:Lists of college bowl games by team.
  • Determining what is a "rivalry."


  • The order of the C.o.M. should be determined as a result of a vote during the final week of the previous month.
  • January-May:The power five conferences will be completed first.(ACC, Big Ten, Big 12+indy's, Pac 12, SEC)
  • June-October:The group of five conferences will be completed second. (American, CUSA, MAC, MW, Sun Belt)
  • November:Ivy League and other FCS
  • December:congratulate ourselves on the effort and find the next big hurdle)

Soo, any takers.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Im up for it. My vote ACC...Pvmoutside (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this can keep crap like the below nomination from becoming commonplace.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Rivalry AfD notification[edit]

As many of us can agree that Florida State & Georgia Tech is not a rivalry, I have gone ahead and nominated Florida State–Georgia Tech football rivalry at AfD. This message is to notify y'all of the discussion. THEowner of a l l 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)