Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject College football
Overview
Project page talk
College football Portal talk
Participants talk
Active editors
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment (log) talk
Peer review talk
Article alerts talk
Newsletter talk
Style and content guides
Style guide talk
Templates talk
Image use talk
Notability talk
Reliable sources talk
Vacated victories talk
Master team table talk
Team articles talk
Yearly team pages format talk
Coaching trees talk
Major vs small college compendium talk
External resources
Archived yearbooks talk
Official guides talk
Media guide errors talk
Lists of pages needing help
To do list talk
Cleanup listing talk
Deletion reviews talk
Unreferenced BLPs talk
Campaigns
Season articles campaign talk
The Perfect Season talk
CFHOF article improvement talk
Coach articles campaign talk
Current season articles
2024 NCAA D-I FBS season talk
2024–25 bowl games talk
2024 FBS rankings talk
2024 NCAA D-I FCS season talk
2024 FCS rankings talk
2024 NCAA D-II season talk
2024 D-II rankings talk
2024 NCAA D-III season talk
2024 D-III rankings talk
2024 NAIA season talk
2024 NAIA rankings talk
Current article checklists talk
Tools
Project banner talk
{{subst:CFBwelcome-project}} talk
Photos on Commons
Userboxes
Project userbox talk
NCAA teams talk
view · edit · changes

Beginning discussion

[edit]

I blatently copied the Military page on this topic and converted to college football. The importance scale is open for discussion, as in creating it, it was hard to define the levels. Generally, current information should be rated higher and more global information covering all of college football should be rated higher. Perhaps, for example, a person should rate an article on it's currentness and globalness on a scale of 0 to 5 and add the two numbers and if it's 8-10 it should be top, 6-7 high, 4-5 mid, 2-3 low and 0-1 why does it exist? Thus, items about the current season would automatically get a 5 plus the globalness, (say a team page) would get a 1 or 2 so it would be a 6-7 and rated high. An item about a current player would be the same. An NFL player, if currently playing in the NFL would be a 4, if retired a 3 or 2 depending on how long ago. Let me try and sort this out with a chart:

  • Current (0-5 points)
    • Articles that cover more than this (team page?) should take the value when the most current info of the team. A current team, 5 points, a defunct team, whenever their last season was.
    • This year or last year, 5 points
    • A few years ago, 4 points
    • A decade ago, 3 points
    • A generation ago, 2 points
    • General Historical Info, 1 point
  • Globalness
    • Covers all of college football, 5 points (BCS, NCAA)
    • Covers a general event (Rose Bowl), 4 points
    • Covers a general group (Conference), 3 points
    • Covers a player, team, specific event, 1 points
  • Bonus points for signifigance (up to 3 points?)
    • More important items, must be generally agreed upon
      • Joe Paterno

Still seems fairly random. I guess it can't be an exact science. Mecu 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Importance ratings

[edit]
It certainly can't be an exact science but it is a start. I notice that Big Bertha has been tagged Low importance while Sooner Schooner has been tagged medium. My first thought was that they should both be the same level since they are each a tradition of a major college team. However, on reflection, I think the Sooner Schooner is a more famous symbol of OU than Big Bertha is of Texas. Hook 'em Horns and Bevo are both more famous and should probably be ranked higher. Johntex\talk 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing nothing but rating for hours. I rated Big Bertha Low since it was a unique tradition. I almost gave it Mid since it's a special college football tradition, but since it's not the mascot it doesn't matter. One should think about it like this, I think: If someone knew nothing about college football, what would you tell them? What is more important? A mascot seems to be Mid, and Big Bertha seems Low. The more important players, coaches, schools, history, rivalries, bowls — the things that make college football college football should be higher. Special traditions like that are unique to college football, so it's a grey area. Besides, it's quite well developed (though that may be the exception to items like this since the {{UTTalk}} people are active) and doesn't really need us to take a big look at it. It's hard to classify everything into 4 categories without there being some dispute since there are so many shades of grey. If you want to change a rating class or importance by 1 level, I wouldn't have any problem with that. More than 1 level and there should be clear evidence for a reason for change or discussion is needed. The 1 level up or down should be only allowed once and if conflict arises, a discussion should occur. Mecu 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree with you, but not fully. For example, but I disagree about Hook 'em Horns. This is a major symbol of UT and is virtually synonymous with UT football. It is also used an insult and taunt by opposing teams like OU that don't have their own hand symbols. It is well known across college football. It is far more important to college football than the mascot of the "119th team". It is also far more important to college football than something that happened in one game, such as Fifth Down. I won't change the rating myself since I am a major contributor to the article. Also, as I have said over on the main project Talk page - I think this whole system can use some refinement. I know you have been putting a lot of work into these rankings, but I think major systems like this should be discussed and refined first, before someone spends a lot of time utilizing them. Johntex\talk 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Popularity should increase importance. I re-read the guideline listed above the table which I'll quote here: they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football. Thus, the key item should be popularity. So the BCS schools should be higher than all the others and all other divisions. NFL players/coaches increased in rating as well. I think in general I've been following this with a few exception where I'll read a stub on a coach and see they're listed in the hall of fame so I'll put them High instead of Mid (or Low) just because of that, which now seems wrong. Mecu 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think creators of the article or major contributors should rank the articles. Thoughts? CJC47 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we all agree with that. Johntex\talk 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is, I think, the best policy. Z4ns4tsu 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the ratings are peculiar, the Miami Orange Bowl is rated high, while Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and Doak Campbell Stadium are low. Why would the stadium that competes with the Citrus Bowl as the biggest piece of junk in the Sunshine State be more important than the Swamp, which never has an attendence below 87,000 (where the Orange Bowl occasionally has crowds of less than 25,000) and is Kirk Herbstreit's favorite on-campus stadium, along with having the reputation being one of (if not the) most intimidating places to play and having existed nearly a decade longer than the Orange Bowl. I just don't get it.--Porsche997SBS 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Orange Bowl hasn't been rated by WP:CFB, it's not even tagged as part of the WP:CFB. --MECU≈talk 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards at Top

[edit]

There were several awards, like the Maxwell Award, that were rated at Top. I went ahead, was bold and changed them to low. I left the Heisman Trophy at Top. My question is whether or not those should be low. Bornagain4 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd saw awards that are 2nd level (ie, not Heisman) should be High since they are both important, and cyclic in popularity so that it should receive enough attention. Someone who hears "so and so won the Maxwell Award" then wonders and searches for information on the Maxwell Award would want a suitably nice article written on it. --Mecu 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deal, I'll switch it. Bornagain4 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classification determinations

[edit]

We had a discussion awhile back about how to classify certain articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#A new way of looking at things. I've taken those determinations and compiled a list below. Please review. Maybe this should be included on the main page for people to refer to when ranking articles.

  • Core
  • Teams
    • Pages related in a generic way to the current season (e.g. 2007 Fiesta Bowl)
    • The main football article (if it exists) of the top 25 football programs in modern times (by winning percentage - e.g. Texas Longhorn Athletics, Oklahoma Sooners football)
      • HIGH
    • The main football article (if it exists) of all other Division I-A programs.
      • MID
    • An article on any specific team season if they won or shared (AP, Coaches or BCS only) a national title since 1995 (e.g. 2005 Texas Longhorn football team).
      • HIGH
    • An article on the specific teams about to play in the BCS bowls (once known) or the ones that just played in the most recent BCS bowls through the off-season.
      • HIGH
    • An article on any other specific team's single season (all 2006 team seasons would be in this group until the BCS bids are announced)
    • An article on any DI-AA team.
      • LOW
  • Players & Coaches
    • An article on a specific person in the college football hall of fame or who is a recipient of a major college award (Heisman + ...?) or was the subject of a media frenzy.
      • Historic person considered fundamental to the understanding of college football (e.g. Bear Bryant, Walter Camp)
        • HIGH
      • Otherwise
        • MID
    • A current coach of a BCS/Top25 team (e.g. Mack Brown).
      • HIGH
    • A player or other coach that is current (college or NFL) but not an award winner (at either level)/Top25 (e.g. Dan Hawkins, Mark Mangino).
      • LOW
    • An article on any other specific player, coach or person
      • LOW
    • An article on any DI-A player or coach
      • LOW
  • Facilities and Traditions
  • Conferences
    • A major conference (e.g. ACC, Big Ten).
      • HIGH
    • A mid-major conference (e.g. MAC, C-USA).
      • MID
    • A defunct conference (e.g. Big 8).
      • LOW
    • A DI-AA conference.
      • LOW

--NMajdan•talk 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic programs are not under the College football Wikiproject. MECU≈talk 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some are tagged. Don't know which off the top of my head, but I added those fields after coming across them. I'll remove them as I see them.--NMajdan•talk 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 25 ambiguous

[edit]

In the above scheme, I find this phrase to be ambiguous: "Articles on the current coach of a BCS/Top 25 team". In context it looks like it could be saying an all-time Top 25 team, but it could be referring to the current Top 25. I really want to see people like Chris Petersen get their due (because I think the stories of programs like that are interesting), so I'm hopeful it's the latter interpretation. Regardless, it should be clarified. Cheers, PhilipR 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it is the latter: It could be written: Articles on the current coach of a current BCS (ranking) team. Articles on the current coach of a current Top 25 ranked (AP or Coaches, not Harris) Team." --MECU≈talk 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up?!

[edit]

Why's it takin' so long to get any assessments done? Come on people. I think I'm the only one who's reiewed or commented the assessment page this MONTH! Let's get some work done people!!! --Crash Underride 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement to have someone else rate an article. While you may be biased since you heavily edited the article, you could make an attempt a rating, especially if you are familiar with the rating. It is not specific to WP:CFB and standardized across all projects. Lastly, most CFB editors (at least I) make assessments without the need to come to this page. With the low volume of work to be done here (at the page, there is tons to be done in rating), the page is probably not heavily watched. MECU≈talk 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'd be too tempted to rate it just above start or something. lol I think it's better if I don't rate my own, especally for WVU football players lol. --Crash Underride 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classes

[edit]

Could we add a template class for college football for items such as Template:2009 Big East football standings, Template:NCAAFootballYearlyGameHeader, or other such items. I think it would be helpful if there were something like that so that all templates related to college football could be more easily grouped and eventually standardized, rated, and updated. Any thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a terrific idea. I have worked on several of the templates, and a grouping like you mention would certainly be welcome. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Template class now. Setting class=Template will place the page in Category:Template-Class college football articles. There's a bit of a backlog of templates that need to be updated at Category:College football template pages. I've knocked the list down a bit, but there are still over 600 articles to get set as Template-Class. We also have Category-Class with a corresponding backlog of over 100 articles at Category:College football category pages. In addition, there is now Future-Class for articles referring to events that haven't happened yet (like next season), Current-Class for events that are in progress, Needed-Class for needed articles that haven't been created yet or only exist as a redirect, like 2010 Fiesta Bowl. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining reassessments

[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Streamlining_reassments. Thanks. DeFaultRyan 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

[edit]

I'm proposing a change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Change Proposal to Assessment. Please visit that page for discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating importance assessment

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria § Importance of topic

Per discussion (and no objection) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, I am beginning the process of reinstating importance assessment. I thought a good place to begin would be some basic principles, in no particular order:

Thoughts? cmadler (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix proposal

[edit]

With consensus, an article may be assessed as one level lower than given for its type. In exceptional cases, with consensus, an article may be assessed as one level higher than given for its type.

FBS AQ FBS non-AQ ("mid major") FCS Other
Association Season Top (2010 NCAA Division I FBS football season) High (2004 NCAA Division I-AA football season)
Conference High (Mid-American Conference) Mid
Conference season* High (2010 Big Ten Conference football season) Mid Low
Team High (Kentucky Wildcats football) Mid Mid
Team season* Mid (2010 Akron Zips football team)** Low** Bottom**
Rivalry Mid (Paul Bunyan Trophy) Mid (Michigan MAC Trophy) Low (Battle for the Old Mountain Jug) Low
Single game* Low Low Bottom
Post-season game (general) High (Rose Bowl) Mid (Humanitarian Bowl) Mid (Gridiron Classic) Low (Aztec Bowl)
Post-season game (specific)* Mid for BCS bowls/top-10 teams (2010 Sugar Bowl), Low for all others (2005 Motor City Bowl) Bottom
Ranking/rating systems (inc. championships) High (Bowl Championship Series, Dickinson System) Mid Low (NCAA Division II National Football Championship)
Pageantry and lore Low (Aggie Bonfire, The Victors, Sparty, Quarterback U, Game of the Century (college football), Rudy (film))
Head coach* Low (Rich Rodriguez)*** Bottom
Assistant coach*** Bottom
Player* Low (Dan LeFevour)** Bottom
Facility Mid**** Low****
General football concepts Top-Mid (depending on degree of use through the history of the sport)
Individual awards and honors Low***** Bottom*****
Media coverage/figures Mid-Bottom, assessed on an ad hoc basis (College Football on ABC, Brent Musburger, Grantland Rice)
List At the normal level of the items in the list.

*Based on level at the time, e.g. 2010 UMass Minutemen football season was in FCS but 2013 UMass Minutemen football season will be in FBS. This principle also applies to now-defunct programs, conferences, and post-season games.
**National champion team seasons, Hiesman Trophy winners, consensus first-team All-Americans, should start two levels higher than given; conference champion seasons, All-Americans, and other major national award winners should start one level higher than given.
***Based on the highest level coached; coaches who have won a national championship should start two levels higher than given; coaches who have finished a season in the top 10 of a major poll or won a conference championship should start one level higher than given.
****Facilities that have always been primarily practice facilities should start one level lower than given. Facilities that have served as the home site for multiple national champion team seasons and/or regularly hosted a top-tier (BCS/top-10) post-season game should start two levels higher than given; facilities that have served as the home site for one national champion team season and/or regularly hosted a post-season game should start one level higher than given.
*****National player of the year or MVP awards (e.g. Harlon Hill Trophy) should start two levels higher than given; other major national awards (including positional awards, coaching awards, All-America teams, and national halls of fame) should start one level higher than given.

Sub-topics

[edit]

Often, as an article grows, sections of it may be spun off as separate articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). When this is the case, the sub-topic should generally be one importance level lower than the parent article, or infrequently the same importance level. Only in exceptional cases will the sub-article be of higher importance than the parent article. Among others, this rule applies to a team history (History of Ohio State Buckeyes football) and lists of bowl games by team (List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games) relative to the team article; football by conference (Big 12 Conference football) and lists of champions by conference (List of Big Ten Conference football champions) relative to the conference article; bowl games by season (2010–11 NCAA football bowl games) and yearly rankings by season (2010 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings) relative to the association season article.

Special assessment levels

[edit]
  • Unknown-importance articles are those that have not yet been assessed, or where the importance is in dispute.
  • NA-importance pages are pages outside articlespace, including project pages and templates.
  • No-importance pages are non-articles in articlespace, such as redirects and disambiguation pages.

Comments on proposed importance assessment schemes

[edit]

The matrix above may look complicated, but keep in mind that this WikiProject has nearly 30,000 articles in it. The more explicit we can be as to how the articles should be assessed for importance, the easier it will be to apply an assessment scheme, and the fewer arguments are likely to result. With such a matrix, it should be relatively simple to assess the importance of even a stub article, it being necessary only to determine the applicable category, the level of competition, and whether any special considerations apply. cmadler (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Cmadler. This is a great starting point for discussion. I have several comments and/or proposed adjustments:
1. On the typical WikiProject importance scale, there are four, not five, importance classifications: (a) Top; (b) High; (c) Mid; and (d) Low. I have not encountered a "Bottom" classification for importance.
2. Starting all notable college football players at "Mid" strikes me as too high; they need to be more finely classified. The starting category should be presumed to be "Low." Add one classification (Mid) for "All-American" honors of any kind, two classifications (High) for consensus All-American honors or other major national awards (using a defined list of awards), and two to three classifications (High to Top) for Heisman recipients, depending on their historical importance to the game. As a floor, College Football Hall of Fame members should be ranked no lower than "High"; CFBHOF membership should be a Big Deal on our scale.
3. Team seasons should also be more finely graded. Start all of them at "Mid" importance, and add one classification (High) for either a major conference championship or a top-ten BCS finish (but not for both), and add two classifications (Top) for a BCS or consensus national championship.
4. Start head coaches at "Mid" importance. Add one classification for a BCS or consensus national championship, and two classifications (Top) for "dynasty" coaches (e.g. Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, Bobby Bowden, Urban Meyer). Like players, CFBHOF membership should be treated as a floor for coaches, and inductees ranked no lower than "High." Subtract one classification (Low) for retired coaches who never won a major conference or national championship and were not elected to the CFBHOF.
5. Rate all mascots and pageantry as "Low." Rate the Tournament of Roses as "Mid." After that, I wouldn't trade ten Brutus the Buckeye articles for one well-written article on Woody Hayes; in my ideal world, the mascots would all be buried in an appropriately obscure paragraph on the football team or athletic program pages . . . but, to each their own.
Those are my thoughts. Others may differ. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'll respond on each point.
1. Per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic, "Bottom" and "No" are optional importance levels. Given that this WikiProject is fairly large (nearly 30,000 articles), it seems to me that we should use all possible levels.
2. Beyond a few high-level type articles, I don't think any group of articles should automatically get "Top" importance. My thought was that a Heisman Trophy winner or consensus first-team A-A gets an automatic bump to start at "High" importance, and per the introductory text ("In exceptional cases, with consensus, an article may be assessed as one level higher than given for its type.") could be upped another level to "Top" based on discussion. I'll adjust it to indicate "Low" importance for playes who have not received any All-American honors or major national award.
3. After thinking about it, I mostly agree, and will change it accordingly.
4. I did mostly what you suggest; my thought was that a D-I national championship coach starts as High, and per the introductory text ("In exceptional cases, with consensus, an article may be assessed as one level higher than given for its type.") could be upped another level to "Top" based on discussion. I'll add a note that coaches who've never won a conference championship are "Low".
5. Per your suggestion, I'll change the starting point for AQ mascots and pageantry to "Low". Assuming we use all five levels, I think we should keep non-D-I mascots and non-FBS pageantry as "Bottom" rather than raising it to "Low".

Changes made. cmadler (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cmadler, thanks for all your work here and for kicking off the matrix. The following is a list of things missing from your matrix that ought to be added in:

Jweiss11 (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional article types. I hope you don't mind if I use your comment as a bit of a checklist. cmadler (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind at all! Jweiss11 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through it, Jweiss appears to have listed all the things I thought were missing, so I'll restrain myself to just saying that cmadler has done an incredible job. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per what Dirtlawyer has said above, iconic head coaches of major programs (current or historical), e.g. Paterno, Bowden, Bryant, Neyland, Hayes, Shembechler, Yost, Stagg, Camp, Warner, Heisman, Dodd, Royal, Wilkinson, Switzer, Osborne, Sutherland, Zuppke, Parseghian, Rockne, etc..., should be top priority. These guys have been the faces of college football. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still to do from the above list:
Thoughts on these? cmadler (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my completely unqualified opinion regarding awards, the Heisman (only? maybe one or two others like the Maxwell) is high, while everything in "Positional awards", a couple of the bigger coaching awards, the College Football All-America Team and College Football Hall of Fame are mid. Everything else on that template seems low, especially compared to the other low-importance items in the above matrix. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done cmadler (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

[edit]

Has anyone looked at articles importance rank recently? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Top-importance_college_football_articles ...I think that we might have one or two more important articles to get to than say, the 1901 Michigan Wolverines. 199.190.61.128 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In hopes of getting things closer to how the table dictates so we can then discuss things further I've added and changed many importance ratings. A national championship season gets a "top" rating, and the 1901 Michigan squad was the first of those "point-a-minute" national championship teams. Cake (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AQ and non-AQ in Importance section?

[edit]

Can someone add links or footnotes on the importance section to explain the terms "FBS AQ" and "FBS non-AQ"? I added the FCS one, but the other distinctions are not obvious to folks outside of the project. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment&oldid=1238733569"