Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Nov2006

Image Deletion because they classifiy them as "Replaceable"

I have had several images come up that people say are replaceable. But the key is that it's not reasonable for me to search the internet for a decent image of the head coach. One person had argued that 50000 fans attend each game. But the odds that they take a picture of the head coach (who does that?) and upload the image to the internet and are willing to release them are asinine. Using the university/athletic department official bio picture is perfectly acceptable. However, they don't seem to get it. Can someone help me fight this battle? You can see the images that are disputed on my talk page: User talk:Mecu. I noticed the user who deleted Johntex's image that was disputed also just deleted mine, so this might be a wider-spread problem. I also think consolidating all the discussion in one place would help so each image doesn't have to get fought over and over. --MECU≈talk 13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who does that? hmmm... me - and not just of coaches, but of players on the sideline in addition to action shots. Given that the goal of Wikipedia is to have a free resource that is unencumbered by copyright issues, we should always be trying to get or create images that meet that criteria regardless of whether it is easy. There is a mechanism for getting new images for articles and those of us in the project should make the extra effort to get the pics we want/need. If Wikipedia and the project matters to you, you'll make that effort. I took a few hours of my time to go to Oakland Cemetery specifically to take photos (and edit them) for that article and they helped it achieve FA status. Obviously people are tougher than physical objects, but our subjects (college football players and coaches) have specific schedules to be in particular places that are publicly accessible. It's not that hard. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to fly around the country attending college football games just to get a picture of players/coaches/people. If a free image IS available I have no problem using it if it's decent quality. But to scour the web or attend football games to get pictures is above and beyond a reasonable expectation. --MECU≈talk 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mecu on this. I personally have seen the official publicity photo of Colt McCoy face deletion. Among the reasons given was that a free photo is available. That free photo is a picture of McCoy in full uniform (including helmet) rushing in a game situation. I like the photo as an action shot. I should like it - I took the picture and added it to the article. But you can't even tell what he looks like because he is wearing his helmet and it is a long range shot with my 300 meter zoom lense so it is not even the best action photo in the world. Both photos should remain in the article. The image deletionists are on this new crusade because they have the idea that Wikipedia is some sort of free content crusade. Personally, I think it is first and foremost an encyclopedia. When fair use photos make the articles beter - we should use them. If people contribute free content also - that is great, but we should not make our articles suffer on the basis of some free content crusade. Johntex\^talk 01:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

MECU, no one says YOU personally have to fly around; clearly there are many members of this project, not to mention wikipedia as a whole that can create these images. You seem to have ignored completely my reference to the Requested Pictures page. And it's not up to you to decide what is reasonable - your lack of inconvenience does not make the usage more legal. By using an image that is not free you could be creating a legal (and large monetary) liability for the Wikipedia Foundation which could put an end to the entire enclycopedia, not just impact the visual appeal of a few articles. Everyone should review not only WP:FAIR but Fair use as well and comtemplate whether you really think the pictures you are obtaining are really being used under the legal doctrine of fair use. Note that at WP:FAIR "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." is specifically noted as an example of what is NOT fair use. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 23:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree --particularly on players and coaches (stadiums are different and easier to get). For the record, capturing the photo I got of Patrick Turner was far more difficult than I thought it was going to be (of any player). He was in the background of a high-res photo and I was able to crop it. It honestly looks like he was looking right at me, but that's highly doubtful. Thankfully we spanked Stanford so bad that the team felt like hanging around with the visitors afterwards. --Bobak 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Bowden

The Jeff Bowden article was a copy/paste of his FSU bio. It has now been deleted at my request and I have started on a stub. If you are looking for something to do, please consider helping with this article as he is in the news right now and is going to be a big search term for the next few weeks. BigDT 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Terms on {{NCAA DI-A Conferences}} template

X96lee15 has objected to the use of the term "Mid-major" to describe the non-BCS conferences on the template citing that it is derogatory. If you have an opinion on the matter, please drop by the talk page and voice it. z4ns4tsu\^talk 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, they're not officially called that anymore. The NCAA came up with some fairly half-baked new categories this year, they're so bad the media briefly noted them at the beginning of the season and stopped using them. I'm trying to remember them and I can't... they're really obtuse and wordy. --Bobak 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember that. I thought it was supposed to start for the 2007-08 season though. Something like "Bowl Caliber" and "Playoff Division" or something. It was to replace the use of DI-A, I-AA, II and III I thought. --MECU≈talk 13:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Right! That was it. Meh, we'll see if they get any traction. Why not just rename D-IAA the "not quite ready for prime time players"? --Bobak 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bowl Games

What's our policy for linking to schools in bowl game articles? Should we link to:

1. The university article? Probably the highest quality of our options, but may be the least relevant.
2. The school's athletics article? May not be of high quality, but is getting more relevant
3. The football team's page, if they have one? For example, 2006 California Golden Bears football team. May not be of high quality, but the most relevant link. The above linked page is a great example of what a good page should look like.

Furthermore, I think we should have a Manual of Style for Bowl game articles, in regards to linking, what the layout of the page should be like, what section headers should read like, etc. I think this would be helpful for helping maintain bowl articles. Thoughts?

I was thinking about that. What would be ideal would be to link to a year page for every team, even if it is just a redlink. Then, we can gradually fill in all of the pages with content, at least for the teams in New Years Day bowls. BigDT 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest linking to all three. Something like "The University of Texas Longhorn team of 2006..." Alternatively, if we dislike wikilinks being adjacent to each other the prose could be something more like "The 2006 Texas Longhorn football team enjoyed the first-ever trip to the Gator Bowl for any Texas Longhorn team. They were the 98th football team from The University of Texas to participate in a bowl game." Johntex\^talk 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Along these lines, I was going to propose that we make all the pages that are currently red on the Master Team Table into at least redirects. So, if there isn't an athletics article, it would redirect to the university page, if there isn't a football article it would redirect to the athletic page (unless there isn't one, then you link to the university page to avoid the double redirect). Then, everywhere could link to the football page and until someone actually makes it, it will at least link to the university or athletics page. Then, we could adopt the policy that within the WikiProject CFB, we always link to another football page. Then again, we're supposed to link upwards to the university article, so maybe Johntex's idea is the best, then you get all three. Perhaps this needs more discussion. Should we link to football pages over the general athletic pages? Johntex's forgot a level too: "The University of Texas Longhorn team of 2006..." But then "2006" doesn't link to where someone may expect and many have been conditioned that a year link you just ignore. --MECU≈talk 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer having a single link, given the confines of the "Past results" tables. I'd say keep all university articles linked for now. Then have someone (perhaps a bot?) go through and link those universities which have athletics pages to their respective athletics pages. From there, see which ones have sport-specific pages (such as California Golden Bears football). Link those pages with the next run (or do it all in one fell swoop with a bot). Now after the bot/person does this, then have yearly team pages be linked for those who have those.

Then, sit around and wait for more sport-specific pages and more sport/year-specific pages to crop up. As soon as a new sport-specific or sport/year-specific pages come about, then link relevant articles to said pages.

Also, we need to clean up the following articles: Capital One Bowl, Rose Bowl Game, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl (game), Sugar Bowl, NCAA football bowl records, NCAA football bowl games, 2006-07, NCAA football bowl games, 2005-06 and NCAA football bowl games, 2004-05 all need cleanup. Most need duplicate links removal. Others may need rewrites of some paragraphs. Tables should also be cleaned up. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting

(I archived things to make this page smaller) How should we handing recruiting? Should there be a general page with only the most important players listed (top 10 in country)? We could have 2007 NCAA Football National Signing Day that links to the highest-profiles with then summaries for each school and rankings from each position and/or overall rankings of school recruiting classes. Should each team season page be allowed to list the recruiting? Should it go at the end since there is recruiting during the season, but signing day and most recruiting happens after the season. How much is okay? Do you list every recruit that is potential? Only list if the verbal (and stay listed if they de-commit since that still is notable?) Is it okay to create an article on a player like Mitch Mustain (who survived an AfD prior to committing by no consensus)? I think top 10 recruits would be okay to have articles (not all 5-stars, those that are top 10 in the nation overall -- not even top 10 in their position in the country), but articles on each recruit may be weak. It would be okay to have "sub" articles on the team season page perhaps under recruiting. Anyone else have some thoughts? --MECU≈talk 14:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No input so I took a stab. Look here 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team#Recruits. I wish the stars didn't have empty stars, but free is free. --MECU≈talk 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Individual team year pages

I was looking at the list at 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season of teams that have individual pages. Really, I think there neess to be some standard. Ohio State, for example, obviously is a good one to have. Conspicuous for their absence are West Virginia, Louisville, and Rutgers, one of whom is going to be the Big East champion. Also, Arkansas, WFU, BC, and Maryland who will be competing in the next two weeks for the the SEC and ACC titles, aren't there. On the other hand, Washington, Purdue, Miami of Ohio, and Colorado, none of which are in danger of sniffing the top 25, all have pages.

This was discussed above for past seasons, but we really need to decide something about this season, as it is coming to a close.

Obviously, this is a factor of who is willing to take the time to put something together. If someone has time to maintain a team page, then they have one. If nobody does, then they don't.

So I would propose that we come up with some sort of criteria. There are four meaningful possibilities:

• Possibility 1: Leave things alone - as long as the team page is maintained and has accurate and up-to-date information, that's fine.

1. NMajdan
2. MECU≈talk - The Colorado season was notable, that they tied their school record of 10 straight losses this season. Maybe I'm biased, because I put all that effort into the page, but really, what does it hurt? I agree there should be pages on those other teams, especially if they're going to play in a BCS bowl, but the 2006 USC page was a short stub until I worked in it yesterday. They're #2. People are going to work on what they're interested in, not necessarily what's best for Wikipedia. It's why I work on college football pages and not military history pages. And the consensus above stated as long as it's well kept/written, it shouldn't be removed afterwards. Having more info on college football will only increase the exposure of the project. Removing valid info about Miami of Ohio just because they're a lower level and won't make a BCS bowl doesn't seem to be a good reason.
3. Nothing wrong with having pages for individual seasons no matter how dismal they are, information is useful and should therefore be on Wikipedia. {{}}VegaDark 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Nothing wrong with having pages for individual team seasons - no matter how the team fares, so long as the article itself is a decent article. There is absolutely no point to deleting a well-written article just because the team did not end up doing well. To do so would be to discourage creation of good articles for fear that the work would be in vain if the article is deleted. For an example, please see 2006 Texas Longhorn football team, which is a well-sourced, informative article that would have to be deleted under some of the other proposals here. Johntex\^talk 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
5. There is a lot of history and info... can be useful to people looking for recaps of rivalry, or to put famous games into context. For example, the 2005 Tennessee-LSU was a memorable game coming after Hurricane Katrina. It took on different meaning after Tennessee tanked the year and LSU rattled off 9 straight wins folowing that game. CJC47 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Possibility 2: Actively work to create season pages for all 119 division 1A schools that include at a minimum rosters and game capsules.

1. (Support Here)

• Possibility 3: Ensure that we have season pages for teams that (1) play in BCS bowls, (2) finish in the top 10, or (3) win their conference title or play in a conference title game. All other team season pages should be prodded or taken to AFD.

1. Support with modification - Change the requirement for prod/AFD to one where the article info is merged with the appropriate coach/team page z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
2. (Support Here)

• Possibility 4: After the season, delete all team pages, except for the two teams that play for the national title (or, in the case of a 2003-like season, the three teams that play for the national title).

1. (Support Here)

Any thoughts? BigDT 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistant coaches notable enough for articles?

I noticed that articles on the offensive and defensive coordinators for the Oregon State Beavers football team (Danny Langsdorf, Mark Banker) were created, and was wondering what our policy is on these is. These two are exceptions as they both coached in the NFL before and should probably be kept, but I was wondering what our position is on the average assistant coach who hasn't coached in the NFL. Are all Division I-A assistant coaches notable? Should they have to have coached in the NFL/AFL/CFL before an article is appropriate? VegaDark 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An assistant coach who has notability established by some other means (they were a player themselves or played or were a head coach in the NFL/AFL/CFL as you said) is easy. I think the the project could try to establish a few criteria that could be used to help determine if they are notable enough. Maybe get a few ideas and then vote? --MECU≈talk 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• 5 years at a "major" DI-A school? 10 years? X years?
• If they win the NC?
• If they play in a BCS game?
• If they coached a Heisman or other major award winner (must show direct lineage)?
• If they coached a player who then went on to success in the NFL/other?
• If they are part of a national news story (even if not football related)?
• If they are considered for a head coaching job?
• If they take over coaching for a fired coach in the interim, even if the fired head coach gets the result(s) of the game(s)?
• If they are designated an assistant coach by a DI-A team?
• If they are a graduate assistant of a DI-A team?
• If they are designated as the offense or defense head coach/coordinator (or related title)?

As Mecu said, if they are notable for other reasons such as being a former player (Josh Heupel or Major Applewhite), then yes. Other than that, I think the notability requirements should be fairly strict. Such as only Assistant/Associate head coaches or Offensive/Defensive Coordinators that have held their position at a DI-A school for 5+ years. I think it could get really complicated with all the bullets listed above.--NMajdan•talk 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to create an article for OU's Offensive Coordinator earlier this week and started looking for info on him. Even though he's been with OU for a long time (first year as OC) and has won a bunch of championships as a coach, I couldn't find enough relevant stuff to (in my mind) justify an article. It's not that he isn't notable, but it's more like the assistant coach's are over-shadowed by the head coach and their accomplishments aren't really discussed. It may be that information availability will be the controlling factor on these articles more than notability will be. z4ns4tsu\^talk 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some are ex-head-coaches, like Mike O'Cain. They definitely get articles. Some are famous (or infamous) and are household names among football fans, eg Norm Chow, Jeff Bowden, or Randy Shannon. They definitely should have articles as well. As for anyone else at the IA level, I think that's kindof in between. If there is enough out there to write a sourced article, then go for it. Someone like Bud Foster, for example, could probably have an article, but outside of the ACC, few people know who he is. BigDT 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the point of an encyclopedia of this type is to educate. Getting back grounds and doing good articles on BCS Conference Coodinators and other "name" guys seems very reasonable to me. CJC47 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess if the person is an assistant coach/offensive coord/defensive coord of a major Div IA school, then an article is OK. That is, if you have enough information to write an article and not a stub.--NMajdan•talk 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)