Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Schedule template

I had this on the main page talk page, but it was buried under a previous lengthy discussion and didn't get any responses, so I moved it here.--NMajdan•talk 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I came across a template the NFL uses at the top of its Season-by-Season records. {{Start NFL SBS}} is the template and it uses {{end box}} at the end of the table. You can see it here. We could use something similar to this at the top of our schedule. That way every schedule will be formatted the same. Look at these templates as well: {{Start game list}} and {{Sports game}}. We could make our own versions of those.--NMajdan•talk 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

The 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team page got hit by the Fair Use folks (I use folks generously). See the history page: [1]. They bascically removed all images. I could see removing the logos, but promotional images? Aren't those under a difference fair use category? --MECU≈talk 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he's hitting every page. And, for the most part, I've been reverting his changes. However, on this page, some of the changes are understandable. I agree about the media guide and the player. The article is neither about the media guide or the player and it doesn't really contribute to the article. However, the logos should remain. I believe they do "specifically illustrate relevant sections within the text." So if you wanted to restore those image, be my guest. We have Johntex on our side on that one as well.--NMajdan•talk 18:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny, because I'm of the opposite mind as you. I believe the logo images aren't really needed (though with my justification coming up, you could apply the same reasoning and keep them as well) while the picture and media cover, since they are {{Promotional}} and not simply fair use under some other category, they promote the item and futher illustrate the item being talked about. #8 on WP:FUC says: specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text, of which I believe those pictures do. Thus, if you wanted to apply that to the logos as well, though those are {{Promotional}}, it could work. And if you read that fair use tag, it says to illustrate the work or product in question; which I also thing it is doing. --MECU≈talk 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The logos in the game logs illustrate the opponent that is being discussed in that section. So for that section, the main team that the article is based on and the school that team are playing are the subjects of the discussion and therefore a fair use image should be allowed as it is illustrating the section. Your use of a football player image merely because is states "Player 1: Bob's watchlist" may not meet the terms of fair use. Now, definitely for an article or section about that player, it would be justified, but not a 5-word blurb. Also, if you go to the Promotional template talk page and look at the last comments, one user stats that that tag "does not cover images found on websites, i.e. images that are part of the site's content and not part of a press kit." To put is briefly, the subject of the picture has to be a critical part of either the section or entire article, not just have his name mentioned.--NMajdan•talk 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Since there is no article on the player, shouldn't it be allowed there? And I think mentioning a player's on a national pre-season award list is noteable and justifyable for displaying an image of him. I could create an article on the player, but then there wouldn't be enough there (stub) and perhaps not noteable/big enough to warrant an article, so it's then AfDed. The bit about the promotional line that it's part of a promotional kit doesn't matter, the images meet that criteria. A player listed for a pre-season award is critical to the article. Would a season article be complete without mentioning such information? --MECU≈talk 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A one line mention is not critical enough to warrant the use of a fair use image. However, I just stumbled upon some of the other discussions about fair use images that are going on now and I don't know what to think. I still stand by the beliefs I've stated above but some of the other people in the discussion are taking a way to strict viewpoint (ever much so more than mine) on fair use images.--NMajdan•talk 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I just read the discussion on the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. The logo images were removed, and then put back, but ed g2s has re-removed them again saying they are decorations. (although he has failed to add to the discussion on the talk page this time) I believe Johntex said it best on my talk page edit summary: there are lots of things that can theoretically be said without a picture, but if the picture helps to say them, and if its use is legal, then it may be preferable to say it with a picture. --MECU≈talk 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a good hard swipe, with my reasoning explained in the Discussion page (Talk:2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team). Remember to be sure that all the college logos you use are appropriately licensed (some are not, I fixed all the logos in that article to have {{Univ-logo}}), and be sure to have the rationale discussed on the talk page of the article to at least give yourself some breathing space. Steal my rationales if you want. If you have any questions, I'll watch this page. --Bobak 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember guys: don't let one guy terrorize the rest of us with an overstrict interpretation of Fair Use. When we're talkign about the uses here, the likelihood of real world legal problems is low, and the usage in the example Colorado article should be perfectly safe. --Bobak 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we have to take a stand against overly strict interpretations of policy. We also have to take a stand against people trying to make our already-strict policies even stricter. That would be a real shame for the Project. Johntex\talk 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not my interpretation fair use, this is Wikipedia's policy for unfree images. You guys may disagree with it, but this project is free as in speech, not free as in beer. ed g2s • talk 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this is your interpretation of fair use. We interpret #8 of the fair use policy to mean one thing and you interpret it to mean another.--NMajdan•talk 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHL Entry Draft Example

Just off the top of my head, there was Talk:NHL Entry Draft. ed g2s • talk 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Talk:NHL Entry Draft discussion does not apply here because the use in question there was excessive. Every player had a team logo beside their name. On 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team there are two logos on the page, one which illustrates the university and team being discussed in the article as a whole, the other is that of their next opponent and is the focus of that section of the article. And before you say it, read some case law, the amount of use is directly related to the court's decision in most fair use cases, it is even a part of the law as it is written in the United States (which would have sole jurisdiction over this matter).

Additionally, it would appear from reading your talk page that you have been involved in multiple fair use disputes in the past with little to no discussion involved, just you acting unilaterally to remove images. In many cases, you did so without consulting the editors of a page or even checking the article's talk pages to see if the matter has been addressed before. This is just personal, but you might want to read over WP:Etiquette again. Z4ns4tsu 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't much of a discussion, it's the assertation by one person on your side of the argument your same argument. It doesn't address the comments and arguments we have brought up. I'm tired of your lack of contribuition to the discussion, single-minded focus on your sole argument that this has been resolved and your way is correct, and am referring this to dispute resolutions without waiting for further votes from my vote taking below and removing it from below (comment it out). If you wish to see it, just edit the page to view. --MECU≈talk 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jimbo Comment on Copyvio

I am responding to the following posted on [[this page: Jimbo Wales' statement

I don't believe this is relevant to this discussion. It deals with how to handle users that blatently and consistently post copyvio items. While one side believes these images are in copyvio, the other side doing so does not. If the outcome of this discussion concludes that these images should not be used in this manner, anyone informed of this discussion that then continues to post these images in these manners, would then be applicable to Jimbo's comments above. Until then, however, these images have not been determined to be copyvio, and as such, users actions that have posted these do not apply to his comments. However, no one should be posting/using these images in this manner until the dispute is solved. Please, everyone, refrain from removing, replacing these images until the dispute is solved. If a new user comes along and creates a new page (or replaces them), inform them of this discussion and the truce that is current. Please do not further remove or replace images the new user has done either. --MECU≈talk 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific --MECU≈talk 13:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Copy of my post to the Mediation Cabal case:
As an administrator, I offer my opinion that these are not copyright violations. These images have been discussed on the article Talk pages and found to be fair use. Ed doesn't like that consensus, so he is acting unilaterally to try to remove them.
Some people are more visually oriented than others. The logos are informative to the reader and they occur alongside discussion of the teams they represnt.
It is common practice to use both teams' logos when discussing a contest between the two teams (E.g. Sports Illustrated[2] and ESPN[3] and university websites such as this one).
We have numerous articles where we use logos to represent a company or sports team or sports event discussed in the article (IBM Nebraska Cornhuskers, NASCAR, etc.)
The use of team logos can occur wherever discussion of those teams is taking place. What we happen to have chosen as the title of the article is irrelevant. The use of the logos can occur wherever the discussion occurs, regardless of the name of the article.
For example, using the logos to illustrate a contest between the two teams such as a rivalry between two teams is a perfectly valid fair use justification. (Eg. Bedlam Series) as shown in this version or Red River Shootout)
The same thing applies when the article discusses multiple games, such as those occurring over the course of a team's season. For example, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team contains a description of each game the Longhorns played that year. The logos of the teams they were playing are fair use alongside each game played. Before Ed removed the images, the article appeared like this. He removed the images despite previous discussion on the article's talk page.
Our policy says that fair use images are allowed when they contribute to the article and when no free alternative is available. By definition, no free alternatives are available for logos. The images are useful, and they should be kept. Johntex\talk 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
One more thing to use when you're making a case, please remember that these logos are (1) University logos under {{Univ-logo}} and (2) should also be argued as fair use of trademark (one of the 3 IP branches, the others are CP and Pat) in addition to copyright. The trademarks are protected as symbols/logos of their entity (and never expire, read more in the tm article), there is thus no way to adequately represent a team without using their logo. Thus the argument is whether the logo is warranted. Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that the trademark aspect is mentioned so some non-lawyer opportunist (there are too many on Wikipedia) does not pretend like there's a Trademark aspect that was never discussed. --Bobak 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You made the argument yourself. You can add it on the mediation page. There's no special privlidge or rights there: It's just the location to attempt to coordinate and condense and push the issue. --MECU≈talk 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I did so. --Bobak 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related Pages

I'm going to attempt to add all the relative links on this topic from the various locations they have occured. If you find of or know of others, please add them to the list. Please make the link go directly there, and junotest just to the page. Please centralize all discussions here. --MECU≈talk 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to chart

I have seen several year pages with additional fields in the chart, such as attendance and BCS ranking. Why is the coaches poll the only one that is listed? AP and BCS should be included. Other interesting fields could include opponent's end ranking (in one or more of the polls) and the highest ranking an opponent had during the course of the season. These fields would be interesting to see how good or bad a team truly did, since losing to an unranked team looks a lot better when it shows that team ended the season in the top 10. However, adding these fields could make it a bit long and I could live without them, however I still think they would be interesting. Also, I have seen some pages under "ranking" put ranks past the top 25, since one can extrapolate their rank if any votes are received for them in the polls. I am fine with this, but it should be done for all year pages and not just some if done at all, and a note should be included explaining how one can extrapolate the rankings past the top 25 if any votes are given to a team. In the "Opponent" section I have seen teams put an "@" symbol for away games in front of the name, this doesn't specify if you should do that or not. It also doesn't specify if you should add a rank in front of an opponent if they are ranked, and doesn't specify which poll to use for that rank if that is to be included. Lastly, there should be a double dagger or some other symbol to represent a bowl game. Thoughts? VegaDark 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

First of, when you say 'chart,' what are you referring to? Attendance is in the statistics section of the page. There was a lengthy discussion on which poll to include in the schedule and the Coaches Poll was decided on. The BCS poll is not historic, which an encyclopedic entry should be. The BCS poll doesn't come out until halfway through the season and there is not final BCS poll released after the bowl games. So then the BCS ranking would only be applicable between mid-October and early-December. If we added the BCS poll to the infobox, then the 2005 USC Trojans would have a #1 ranking since thats what they were ranked going into the NCG but it would not change despite them losing to Texas. Same thing for Texas, the BCS field would have them ranked #2. The Coaches was also decided because at least it is still a factor in the BCS, which the AP poll is not. I dont think we should include rankings beyond top 25, because if a team is ranked 26, technically they are not ranked. You never read a sports article that says at team is ranked 26 in the Coaches Poll. I havent used an '@' symbol for away games because the location field says where the game is being played so its easy to discern if its home or away. And yes, it doesn't specificy if you should include the opponent ranking before the team name, but I do (2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team). The bowl game is also specified in the location. Its hard to include an explanation for every scenario, but use your best judgment and look at other team pages as guidelines.--NMajdan•talk 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There was some discussion on this, but I can't find it. I believe Coaches was selected since it was the poll into the BCS, has a continuous period and actually crowns a champion. Whereas the BCS isn't for the whole season and doesn't update after the bowl games and the AP isn't part of the BCS. We wanted to keep it simple and not display 5 rankings, so only Coaches was used for that. I do believe the opponent ranking is supposed to be listed (if any) before their name in the Opponent field. the @ symbol is also supposed to be there before away games, "vs." isn't needed or wanted otherwise. I don't think "extrapolating" ranks should be done at all. The "#26" team isn't really #26, as if the pollsters had actually ranked all 119 teams, another team may have received more votes to be #26. Maybe use "RV" for Receive Votes which would mean they got votes but didn't actually rank into the Top 25, that would mean they are "higher" than the also-rans that didn't even RV. Bowl Games, and championship games, should be highlighted in yellow (#ffffdd), regardless of win or loss. Can you link to some examples where there is some more info in these charts about the opponent please? I think I've covered everything else. --MECU≈talk 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about the "Schedule" section not the infobox to the right. I don't see why including rankings from the other polls in this section aren't included. (I can see not including BCS rank in the template on the right since there is no final BCS poll, but during the season I think it should be included in the schedule section). As for examples of pages that have additional info:
That is from looking at the first 5 team year articles I clicked on. It is clear we need to make some changes to make this a uniform system instead of each year page formatting being different. VegaDark 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it would get too confusing and too messy if we started including numerous polls, especially including a poll only valid for 2.5 months. There articles are meant to be historic so in the overall life of the article, its a lot of extra work to maintain when it would just be deleted in the long run. Some articles don't follow the template precisely because its possible they were created before a template was determined (such as the Texas article), or it was created by a person not aware of the WikiProject or created by a person who doesn't care about the WikiProject's template. Of course we'd like to get them all to appear the same, and the quicker it is decided the better. It would already be a lot of work to go back and modify all the schedules on every yearly team article.--NMajdan•talk 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There's not a lot of differences, just a few minor ones. I think sticking to what we used before of just the coaches poll. No TV Commentators as one of those had. Plus, it gives more to talk about in the "game notes" section. After the season (or sooner if someone desires, I see no critical need) we can go through and clean them all up to look exactaly the same. --MECU≈talk 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The discussion people have been alluding to is here. I agree with the use of only the Coach's poll, I also agree (not surprisingly) with NMajdan about the use (and non-use) of symbols on the table. I would expect, if I was comming to WP for information on my school's football team, to see the date and time of the game, the opponent, their rank and my team's rank, the location, what TV station is was being played on, and the final score when the game was over. Any more information is really extraneous. I like having the mark for non-conference games and I like having the mark for homecomming because both are important parts of college football. BTW, NMajdan, we do use the @ sign for away games. z4ns4tsu\talk 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should look like the following:

Date Time Opponent AP# Coaches# BCS# Location TV Attendance Result
08/31/2006* 7:00 p.m. Eastern Washington RV RV N/A Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW 50,000 W 56-17
09/07/2006* 4:30 p.m. @ Boise State RV RV N/A Bronco Stadium · Boise, Idaho ESPN 50,000 L 14-42
09/23/2006* 7:15 p.m. Idaho NR NR N/A Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW 50,000 W 38-0
09/30/2006 1:05 p.m. #20 California NR NR N/A Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon 50,000 L 13-41
10/07/2006 4:00 p.m. Washington State NR NR N/A Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW 50,000 L 6-13
10/14/2006 3:30 p.m. @ Washington NR NR N/A Husky Stadium · Seattle, Washington FSN NW 50,000 W 27-17
10/21/2006 4:00 p.m. @ Arizona NR NR NR Arizona Stadium · Tucson, Arizona 50,000 W 17-10
10/28/2006 12:30 p.m. #2 USC NR NR NR Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN 50,000 W 33-31
11/04/2006† 1:05 p.m. Arizona State RV RV NR Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon 50,000 W 44-10
11/11/2006 3:15 p.m. @ UCLA RV RV #24 Rose Bowl · Pasadena, California FSN Prime Ticket 50,000 L 7-25
11/18/2006 12:30 p.m. @ Stanford NR NR NR Stanford Stadium · Stanford, California FSN NW 49 W 30-7
11/24/2006 12:30 p.m. Oregon RV RV NR Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN 50,000 W 30-28
12/02/2006* 9:00 p.m. @ #23 Hawaii RV RV #24 Aloha Stadium · Honolulu, Hawaii ESPN 50,000 W 35-32
12/29/2006‡ 11:00 p.m. vs. Missouri #24 #25 #22 Sun Bowl Stadium · El Paso, Texas CBS TBA W 117-0
*Non-Conference Game †Homecoming ‡Bowl Game #Poll rankings released prior to game. NR = Not ranked, RV = Received votes. All times Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8) and subject to change.

Note the following changes: Addition of BCS poll, AP poll, and attendance columns. Bowl game color changed. "Site" changed to "Location". NR and RV used, double dagger symbol used for bowl games, lower case a.m. and p.m. (think that is the correct way of writing them), and "vs." is used before bowl game opponents to show it is played at a neutral location. Opponents should wikilink to their football team (or season article if it exists) but I didn't bother. Personally I think this looks a lot better and includes more useful information than currently, and doesn't look too cluttered. If people disagree perhaps we could take a straw poll on each change on the main college football wikiproject talk page. VegaDark 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the background color for the yellow, which should be used for all conference championship and bowl games, regardless of win/lose status. I also don't think there should be "NR" if they aren't ranked, just leave it blank. And "N/A" for BCS isn't needed either. Link the BCS header and they can read that the poll doesn't come out until later in the season. I don't think the attendance is needed.
I really dislike that. Personal opinion. Too cluttered. I still have to go with the decision we made months ago on the schedule layout. Its too cluttered with all three polls. And I really don't think the attendance is necessary. I like having a table that fits onto my screen with as little wrap as possible and there is a lot on this one. I still like using only the Coaches Poll because it is released every week the entire season and is still a component in the BCS. The Attendance could be included in the game summary if needed. Also, I disagree with the whole "RV" designation. A ranking should only be included if they were ranked.--NMajdan•talk 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I find this chart almost impossible to read for a lot of the reasons that NMajdan stated. I also don't like the yellow for bowl games and would rather just see a win/loss color consistent throughout the season. Besides, if the bowl game is already marked with a double-dagger, then the color is repetitive. Additionally, while attendance is an important aspect of the game, it has nothing to do with the schedule and looks out of place on this table. If you want to list attendance figures, we could change the {{Linescore Amfootball}} template to have an extra line (or create a new one for College football) or just put it in the game's recap. z4ns4tsu\talk 16:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I support adding the attendance to the table, but I don't like the other changes. To me, it is nice to be able to tell at a glance how many people are watching a team's games. Having it in the table does that. As for the polls, I think we should go with the AP poll because it has the longest history. The coach's poll is my second choice. I think beyond that it may be better to create a separate table if the authors want to list a bunch of polls. I think the bowl game and conference championship should be colored won/loss like the regular games. I think these types of games should be prominently marked in some fashion (A dagger footnote is OK by me but I prefer to just indicate it with text in the table itself). Johntex\talk 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset)Sounds like we're pretty far apart in coming to a consensus. I'll list all the areas of contention below and try to align them with what I think people want to get a more visual sense of how far we are. Perhaps if someone is alone in thinking one way they can give it up in the sense to get the more agreed upon items by others. If I mis-placed your name, please fix it by all means (and I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional). If I was right, replace with ~~~ so we'll know you approved (it will change to your signature name then). --MECU≈talk 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

I do hope nobody minds, but I added myself to the opinions above. I hadn't noticed this before, but I will now participate in discussion regarding the yearly team page formats. In all honesty, I do think that the BCS should be added if and only if the team is rated in the BCS standings. There's no point in having nobody-teams having 'N/A' the entire year in their boxes.... if this is possible, of course. --NomaderTalk 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I'll change my name to go under optional. However, I do think a team should add it if they were in the BCS rankings that season. Also, I have a question for the people saying that a Bowl game should only be identifed in the location box - If we went with that, would the game be marked with a "*" to show it is a non-conference game? I didn't think that really fit which is why I proposed the use of the new symbol. PS- the name change from "Site" to "Location" and the use of "vs." before an opponent at a neutral site haven't been discussed. Are we going with that or should we add that to the straw poll questions? VegaDark 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Anybody else have an issue with "optional" fields? I thought the reason we discuss this is so that all schedules will look alike. If the vote comes out that all polls are optional, some will have one some will have all three. I think there should be only Yes or No, but thats just me.--NMajdan•talk 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If you look at "optional" as those votes could go either way and they'd be fine, then there are a few clear things: Never use "NR", "RV" or "N/A", Coaches Poll is mandatory, BCS never, AP and Attendance are split, and the colors is red/green with text. In an attempt to appease everyone, I propose that we include the AP Poll, but omit attendance. Thus the table would look something like this (some fake data used):
Date Time Opponent AP# Coaches# Location TV Result
08/31/2006* 7:00 p.m. Eastern Washington Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW W 56-17
09/07/2006* 4:30 p.m. @ #22/#25Boise State Bronco Stadium · Boise, Idaho ESPN L 14-42
09/23/2006* 7:15 p.m. Idaho Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW W 38-0
09/30/2006 1:05 p.m. #15/#20 California Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon L 13-41
10/07/2006 4:00 p.m. Washington State Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW L 6-13
10/14/2006 3:30 p.m. @ Washington Husky Stadium · Seattle, Washington FSN NW W 27-17
10/21/2006 4:00 p.m. @ Arizona Arizona Stadium · Tucson, Arizona W 17-10
10/28/2006 12:30 p.m. #2/#2 USC #25 Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN W 33-31
11/04/2006† 1:05 p.m. Arizona State #25 Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon W 44-10
11/11/2006 3:15 p.m. @ #15/#16UCLA #24 #24 Rose Bowl · Pasadena, California FSN Prime Ticket L 7-25
11/18/2006 12:30 p.m. @ Stanford Stanford Stadium · Stanford, California FSN NW W 30-7
11/24/2006 12:30 p.m. Oregon Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN W 30-28
12/02/2006* 9:00 p.m. @ #22/#23 Hawaii Aloha Stadium · Honolulu, Hawaii ESPN W 35-32
12/29/2006‡ 11:00 p.m. Missouri #24 #25 Sun Bowl Stadium · El Paso, Texas CBS W 117-0
*Non-Conference Game †Homecoming ‡Bowl Game #Poll rankings released prior to game. All times Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8) and subject to change.

For the opponents, the first # is AP, second is Coaches. --MECU≈talk 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the optional votes mean that if they have a ranking in BCS or AP at any time in the season, then show it, otherwise don't. That seems acceptable to me. I don't really like the #22/#23 thing, looks too messy. We should only go with AP or coaches for opponent's ranking. VegaDark 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to bring up another question, but if we make the table larger, or even if we don't, what is everyone's opinion on making the text inside the table smaller?

Date Time Opponent AP# Coaches# Location TV Result
08/31/2006* 7:00 p.m. Eastern Washington Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW W 56-17
09/30/2006 1:05 p.m. #15/#20 California Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon L 13-41
10/07/2006 4:00 p.m. Washington State Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW L 6-13
10/14/2006 3:30 p.m. @ Washington Husky Stadium · Seattle, Washington FSN NW W 27-17
10/21/2006 4:00 p.m. @ Arizona Arizona Stadium · Tucson, Arizona W 17-10
10/28/2006 12:30 p.m. #2/#2 USC #25 Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN W 33-31
11/04/2006† 1:05 p.m. Arizona State #25 Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon W 44-10
*Non-Conference Game †Homecoming ‡Bowl Game #Poll rankings released prior to game. All times Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8) and subject to change.

Just another suggestion.--NMajdan•talk 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm for that, maybe even smaller than 95% at 90%?
Date Time Opponent AP# Coaches# Location TV Result
08/31/2006* 7:00 p.m. Eastern Washington Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW W 56-17
09/30/2006 1:05 p.m. #15/#20 California Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon L 13-41
10/07/2006 4:00 p.m. Washington State Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN NW L 6-13
10/14/2006 3:30 p.m. @ Washington Husky Stadium · Seattle, Washington FSN NW W 27-17
10/21/2006 4:00 p.m. @ Arizona Arizona Stadium · Tucson, Arizona W 17-10
10/28/2006 12:30 p.m. #2/#2 USC #25 Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon FSN W 33-31
11/04/2006† 1:05 p.m. Arizona State #25 Reser Stadium · Corvallis, Oregon W 44-10
*Non-Conference Game †Homecoming ‡Bowl Game #Poll rankings released prior to game. All times Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8) and subject to change.

Also, "Optional" cannot mean don't put it unless they are ranked, that's what Mandatory means. Optional was intended to mean if someone wanted to put it on a page, then they could, but weren't required to do so... but I regret even putting that option up there now. Ohwell. --MECU≈talk 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When I put 'Optional' for AP, I meant a rather strict interpertation - not only should there be no column for AP, but for the most part, it shouldn't be mentioned. However, there are some teams throughout the year that are ranked on one poll, but not ranked on the other - therefore, if one isn't ranked on the Coaches' Poll, it seems appropriate to me to put the ranking with an † or another symbol closely related to it for the purpose of denoting that it is an AP ranking, not a Coaches' Poll ranking—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomader (talk • contribs).
This is getting confusing. This is another reason why I'm for only including one poll and one poll only. The BCS is great and all, but its only used for 2 months of the season. Coaches, unlike AP, is still a component of the BCS. I still feel we should stick with just one poll, the Coaches.--NMajdan•talk 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with only using one poll. The multiple-poll idea looks pretty haphazard and a link to the year's NCAA rankings table would suffice for the other polls. I think, for the reasons stated in the original discussion and repeated here, that the Coach's poll is the one to use. As for the font size, I like 95% really well, but 90% is getting difficult to read on my monitor (1280x1024) and I'm sure will be impossible on my laptop where I do most my edits (1400x1050). z4ns4tsu\talk 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the current discusion

  • I like the 95% text option as I hate the random breaks to a second line.
  • My optional vote for the AP poll is really more "I'm ok with including it" than "Teams can either have the column or not"

Other randon thoughts:

  • For a set of articles titled 200x University Players football team, having the year on each table row is redundant and hurts readability - only necessary for a few bowl games.
  • The wingdings for non-conf and homecoming games more properly modify the opponent than the date and I prefer them in the opponent column for that reason.

Thanks for listening. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • So...Does this mean add AP, leave off attendance, make bowl games regular red/green, and...BCS no consensus on, so leave off for now? I'm fine with changing the font size. I also still haven't gotten an answer about how we will signify bowl games...since people voted "without symbol" im assuming that means everyone wants to simply signify it with a "*" showing it is non-conference? And nobody has commented on using "vs." to signify it is played at a neutral site, which I still think is a good idea. I am going to assume yes on this one unless someone objects. So if we are agreed, someone should change the chart on the main page to reflect our changes, and can start converting pages to this. VegaDark 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, AP has two votes for add it and leave it off and three for optional. I don't agree with "optional" fields, but right now that is the majority. Same thing for BCS. Four optionals and three nevers. Bowl games should be marked in parentheses in the location box and no symbol (i.e. University of Phoenix Stadium · Glendale, AZ (Fiesta Bowl) ). A bowl game is assumed to be non-conference so no need for an asterisk. I'll support the use of "vs." for games played at a neutral site. Lets give it another couple of days to clear up these matters before changing all. For instance, the AP and BCS are "optional" (which I've said I don't like). So they may not need to be placed on all other schedules. Both z4ns4tsu and I voted "Never" on AP and BCS and since we are the primary editors of the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team article, I'm sure we will probably leave them off. This is why I'm against optional fields. Some editors may want them off others may want them on, creating a disconnect in the appearance of schedules across the WikiProject.--NMajdan•talk 18:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with coming to a uniform system with no optional additions. But in that case, I vote for madantory BCS and AP polls. VegaDark 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer the AP Poll over the Coaches poll for several reasons:
  1. The AP is the longest running poll
  2. AP voters get to vote however they want at the end of the year - not tied by contract to vote a certain way
  3. Coaches poll is a part of the BCS, but only a part. To me, it is somewhat inconsistent to put the Coaches poll in the table but not the Harris or the computer polls. Going with the AP avoids that mess altogether.
  4. The AP poll, being as it is a media poll, tends to be cited the most by the media. Therefore, it is the ranking that most people will encounter most often, leading therefore to fewer discprencies with our sources.
However, I feel less strongly about this than I do about the attendance. I'd really like to see attendance included. As for including the year on each line, it has two advantages: (1) no confusion with the bowl date (2) wikilinking the date per WP:DATE means that date formats will work as the user has set in their preferences. Johntex\talk 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Opponent" Name

I've seen different ways of labeling the "Opponent" section name. Some pages use: "University of Michigan", others use "Michigan" or "Week 1: Michigan" and others might use "Michigan Wolverines". I'd like to propose that just "Michigan" be used. I believe "University of ..." is too formal, "Week 1:" is semi-redundant (it only becomes semi-useful when they have a bye week, but is seeing "Week 1:" and then "Week 4:" really useful? The text should describe if they have a layoff). Any comments? --MECU≈talk 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just use the name of the school with a wikilink to the respective yearly article, football article, athletics article or school article.↔NMajdan•talk 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikilinks in section titles are against the WP:MOS. I'm not talking about in the schedule table or under the weekly sections. Specifically, where we use ===Michigan=== (for example). --MECU≈talk 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I did. Section titles. Well, I prefer "University of..." as I am not a fan of one word section titles. How would you propose to identify University of Texas-El Paso? As University of Texas-El Paso, or Texas-El Paso, or UTEP? Also, you may want to point out this discussion over at WT:CFB as I don't think many people watch this page.↔NMajdan•talk 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer "Texas-El Paso", UTEP is too short and acronyms should be avoided (like USC) to prevent confusion and brevity. I will point here from WT:CFB. --MECU≈talk 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Post-season" vs "After the season"

  • Think that the "Post-season" section could better be renamed to something like "After the season". A conversation on this point has started on an article talk page. Please come by and participate. Thanks! Johntex\talk 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Based upon the discussion linked above, I am going to change the recommendations here to "Before the season" and "After the season". Johntex\talk 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_College_football_Yearly_team_pages_format_9935.html"