Portal talk:College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

football
College football Portal

PortalCollege football is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.


College football
WikiProject
Information
Project page talk
College football Portal talk
Participants talk
2007 NCAA FBS Season talk
2007-08 Bowl Games talk
2007 Rankings talk
Project category talk
Master Team Table talk
Team images talk
Year Page Format talk
Notability guidelines talk
To do list talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  •Worklist  •Log
Newsletter talk
Collaboration of the Month talk
Peer review talk
Tools
Project banner talk
Persondata talk
WP:CFB Templates talk
{{subst:CFBwelcome-project}} talk
Photos on Commons
Userboxes
Project Userbox talk
NCAA Teams talk
edit · changes


Contents

[edit] Couple Questions

Glad to see the portal was approved. Couple questions as I've never really dealt with portals. Who decides the information in the portal? How do we suggest new information? How would I suggest new quotes?--NMajdan•talk 12:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, here is a suggested quote: "We want to build a university of which the football team can be proud." -OU President George Lynn Cross to Oklahoma state legislature. --NMajdan
I think we'd need sources for quotes. --Mecu 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any citations for the current one. But I'll find one for mine. I have a book by George Lynn Cross called President's Can't Punt and I'm almost positive he mentioned it in there. Oh, and here is a link to part of an old Time magazine article on it.--NMajdan•talk 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you like the first version? I thought at first there were no comments because I was looking over at the WikiProject and I didn't think to come here right away. Here are some thoughts I have about organization, etc.

  1. Portals tend to have an "organizer" but that is fairly loose as of course no one person owns the portal. My personal idea of portals is that anyone should feel free to update sections like Current Events and DYK, so long as they follow the format. The organizer tries to ensure that the selected content (selected article, selected picture, selected biography) gets changed out periodically: Not so slowly as to get stale, not so quickly that no one gets a chance to see it before it is gone. I'd suggest about once a week, but we can vary as we see what works. I'm happy to play the organizer role for a while if no one objects. If others are interested in taking a hand, we can switch off that role.
  2. Each section of the Portal (like Quotes) has its own Talk page, but I suggest we discuss here until this page gets so much attention that it becomes necesary to fragment the discussions.
  3. I agree Quotes should have references. I too a little shortcut in creating this portal and I borrowed the selected picture and selected quote from the American Football Portal. The quote should be easy to source with a little work, or better yet, we can replace it immediately with one of our own.
  4. The selected picture is a little harder. Images for the portal have to be free images, no fair use, due to Wikipedia:Fair use, which prohibits fair use images outside of the namespace. I thought the Rose Bowl was entirely appropriate for us, and it is a free image as a work of a US govt employee, so I went with the picture and added different verbiage. There are a few free college football images at Commons:College football, but not that many.
  5. Naturally, the design of this Portal is something I just did. Everything is up for discussion as far as colors, placement of the boxes, etc. I made some decisions based upon what has seemed to work at other portals I've helped with. I have left this tagged "Under Construction" until other people have had a chance to suggest refinements to the design. I did list it at the community signpost to hopefully get attention from more people. Johntex\talk 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We need to create a college football category in the commons. I have some pictures of the OU stadium I could tag but having a category would be beneficial. I don't know if creating categories in the Commons is as strict as here.--NMajdan•talk 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I made a college football category. I placed the college football article into the college football category. I placed the college football category inside the American football category. Please note that commons places a premium on putting the photo into commons articles (which are basically photo galleries) vs just into categories. The reason for this is that when putting them into an article, you can group them, add descriptions to them, etc. Please see The college football article, and then compare it to the college football category it lives in and you will see what I mean. Johntex\talk 14:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I discovered the USGS http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.php so we can grab images from it and use them on Commons. I grabbed Image:Folsom Field.JPG so it'll be the test image to see if it sticks (but I can't see that it won't). Some areas using the viewer aren't in color, so I don't think we should use those images. The viewer isn't the easiest thing to use though, so I might write some directions later on how to use it to get an image you want. --MECU≈talk 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Someone please run through it and provide feedback. Thank you. User:Mecu/USGSSeamlessViewer --MECU≈talk 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected Image

Image:Jones SBC Stadium.jpg It's not showing up for me unless I go to the image page and click on a link there. Is anyone else having this problem? All other images a showing up fine for me. --MECU≈talk 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - that is strange. I tested it on a second browser and it still looks good to me. I just tweaked the size from 300px to 250. Can you please hit refresh and see if anything changes for you? If so, you might edit it back to 300px, hit refresh again, and see if the problem re-appears or not. Johntex\talk 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Still nothing. At least it's just me. --MECU≈talk 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well. Have you scaaned your computer for errors? That could be the cause of this problem. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't showup for me on my home PC or work PC. Must be something in my settings there at Wikipedia? --MECU≈talk 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Just my adblocker it seems. If I click to specifically allow the image, it then shows up. At least it's solved. --MECU≈talk 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I looked at WikiQuote and most of those aren't cited. Not that we should lower our standards, but how do we go about getting a quote listed? Do I just add it to the list, or is there somewhere where we can develop a pool of quotes to draw from that I add it to? Here's some for the meanwhile: --MECU≈talk 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mecu, that is great! Thanks for finding these. As to how to add them, if I understood the proceedure over there, the article I created probably would not be up for deletion.  ;-) Seriously though, sourced is always better than unsourced, but they do have lots of quotes over there that are not sourced. I think it would be enormously helpful if you would go create an account and add these in, and if you could make a note on the AfD page that you have done so that would be even better. Maybe if they see multiple people contributing to the article they will agree it is notable enough to be kept. Thanks! Johntex\talk 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. I removed them here. Please go there for quotes: q:College football --MECU≈talk 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University names

Just a quick question about University names. I've started to contribute to "Did you Know" and I was wondering if it makes sense to use the school names as football fans know them- example: a football fan would know that "Pitt" means "University of Pittsburg" "Michigan" means "University of Michigan", etc. but a non-fan might not be aware of these (although most people in Pennsyvania call the Univerisy Pitt, for instance, someone who is not a football fan might not know). Just some thoughts so we can all be consistent. Obviously, we wouldn't want to use "U of M"- which could be Miami, Michigan, Maryland or use USC which could be Southern Cal or South Carolina- although those uses might be appropriate in individual articles. And what about UCF, UTEP, UNLV, etc. Most fans would know those, but a non fan might be confused. Jcam 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Once the school is introduced, and an acronym given for it, it's okay to then use it throughout the article. Further, with wikilinking, we can take shortcuts and if the user is uncertain whom we are talking about, they can just click. For example: I went to a Colorado football game a few years ago and it was fun. Or: I attended the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU). CU was lots of fun and tough. I have come accross some articles that have introduced the school names okay, but then they would switch to using the mascot/nickname and a non-knower would be confused. Something like: Stanford is doing horrible this season. The Cardinal probably won't make a bowl game. Sure, you could wikilink Cardinal, if that article exists. In short, if you introduce it in the article before hand, I think it's okay to use it. Good example: The Colorado (CU) Buffaloes football team is 0-5 this year so far. CU plays the Baylor (BU) Bears this week and are even favored to win, despite CU being 0-5 and BU being 2-3. The Bears have only won one Big 12 Conference road game ever. Clarity is important. --MECU≈talk 12:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

The DYK section seems to be getting a bit long. Perhaps cut it down to at most 6-7 DYK facts and add a new section. My idea is a section with "random college football records" with various college football statistical records (team or individual) in them. Thoughts ? Jcam 06:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected article rotation?

I noticed that the selected article had not been changed since July. I went ahead and changed it to trick play given the recent Fiesta Bowl. Does anyone have any ideas for the next one? I could, if we have enough suggestions, set up an automatic monthly rotation like many/most other portals have. --BigDT 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of the auto-rotation. We have that on the Texas portal. I actually tried it here at one point but it wasn't working. So, I took it back off and haven't had time to fix it. The Portal manager for the Texas portal has offered to help me - or feel free to push forward if you know how it works. Johntex\talk 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Do we want to do the same thing with anything else? Like selected image? --BigDT 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's do selected image also. Johntex\talk 04:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to propose that Oklahoma Sooners football be thrown into the rotation sometime within the next couple of months. It is one of five GA-quality articles on the WikiProject and has been through an FA nomination while no others have.--NMajdan•talk 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'd support all relevant GA articles being in the rotation. I think Vince Young should be in the rotation as it made GA (though this could be argued as it has more recently lost GA status). Those still won't be enough for true variety, so I think we should also include articles on core terms - like rush (American football) and forward pass. Johntex\talk 04:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. The Oklahoma Sooners football article is ready to go now so maybe it would be good for February and we could work on one of those core items as a Collaboration of the Month to get it ready for the March article. Also, we could alternate between one core term and one team/person every other month.--NMajdan•talk 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could rotate every other month. Even months can be a specific school or recent player/coach. Odd months can be a concept, play, or historic figure. I have gone ahead and done the same thing for Portal:College football/Selected picture. For the purpose of having something to put there, I added a photo from marching band that I thought was particularly good. I'd like to propose Image:2006 VT UGA CFABowl kickoff.jpg, Image:VirginiaTech-HightyTighties-HokieWalk.jpg, Image:2005 Army Navy Game Winners.jpg, Image:Scottstadpan.JPG, Image:102B3481.JPG, and Image:Camp Randall Stadium.jpg as other potential images to use. --BigDT 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to set up a formal process for nominations. Similar to the way FPs and FAs are done now. The only problem with that, I can think of the six or seven people on this project that will be the only voters for every nomination.--NMajdan•talk 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps just declare any article that is GA or better to be automatically qualified. (We could add Fifth Down then) Any article that is B would need to be voted on and start and stub would not be allowed. For images, they must be free (of course) but be used on an article that is at least a B-class. It should further have a high resolution (at least 800x600, though the displayed size could be smaller). Can someone explain to the layman like my how this rotating system works? Or is there a page at WP to read about how it's done? Thanks. --MECU≈talk 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the how-to: Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines#Queue features in advance. So read that and look at the code behind Portal:Oklahoma/Selected article, its pretty easy actually.--NMajdan•talk 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I agree with your criteria, its just a matter on picking the next one without bias. GAs and FAs get a free pass and Bs need a review. The pictures, I disagree. I don't feel they have to be in an article to be used. I have no problems with your min size requirement but there are many good images, I'm sure, on the Commons that are not being used.--NMajdan•talk 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I think weekly would be a good rotation. There is likely enough information to select. At least during the season it should be weekly. My point with the images is that it should tie to an article. I agree there are lots of good images not used, especially on commons, but it should link to a topic on football, not just be a picture for the sake of being a picture (like the picture of the crowd in the stadium example above, Image:Camp Randall Stadium.jpg I think). --MECU≈talk 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problem making it a weekly rotation. But thats more work for out WikiProject and we'll have to stay on top of things. I'm down for it if everybody else it. I still think we should have a formal nomination process so if someone does cry bias or COI or POV, we can point to a nomination page and say, "Look, it was agreed upon and passed." Something similar to Portal:United States/Selected article/candidates or Portal:London/Articles/Vote.--NMajdan•talk 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created a test nomination page on my userspace. Check it out and let me know what you think: User:Nmajdan/Test#Portal nominations.--NMajdan•talk 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Any comments on this? I'd like to get the ball rolling on this early next week as February is fast approaching. I'm trying decide where to place this page. It will be used for both pictures and articles so I was thinking about creating a new subpage. Something like Portal:College football/Selected Content/Nominations. What do you think? Also, there is a Selected Bio on the Portal as well. I think this should be dropped until we get enough high quality articles so we can set those apart. For now, biographical articles should be nominated for Selected Article only. Opinions?--NMajdan•talk 05:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me ... --BigDT 12:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
All looks good to be too. Except, do we really need weekly in the off season? --MECU≈talk 14:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me. Then we just have to make sure we go back and change the variables before the start of the season. I'll make the changes to my test page and create the new page for the month of February.--NMajdan•talk 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Heck, the off-season is when we actually have time to work more on stuff like this. ;) Although I agree ... fewer people are likely to read it during the off-season so we don't really need an article every week. --BigDT 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
One thought I just had is that during the season we should try and stay away from individual teams being singled out. We must be conscious that we're not too Oklahoma heavy, desipite the fact that it may be advantageous to have OU info if they're #1 or something. That's not to say we shouldn't have anything about them if they're doing good, but we should be aware how what we select is viewed. Having 5 OU articles in a row with OU images wouldn't look good. (I don't mean to pick on OU.) I would think we should also try and avoid team-specific items during the season, and focus on people or historical things. We could be mindful of certain things that during bowl season, we would have the bowl 2007-08 page listed, as it's likely what folks will be looking for, etc. After the NC game, having the 2006 season page of the winner would be a good option for awhile too. Like, right now we should have the 2006 Florida season page... of course, these items must all be quality and such before using them. --MECU≈talk 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. But, as you said, we must use quality articles and right now those are few and far between. If you look at the nomination page, you'll see I nominated the Oklahoma Sooners football article, the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article and your Fifth Down article. The first and last are GA and the Texas article could be if nominated, but Johntex is hoping to get that FA. I see no reason to feature an individual school more than twice a year (two articles per year and two pictures a year).--NMajdan•talk 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree we're sparse. I'm not so sure about making sure we keep 2 per school per year though. I would treat that as a guideline. Like, if we put Texas and an image of Texas up, and then Texas is #1 in December playing #2, having another Texas image or article would be good to have... I do like the idea so that we are forced to almost look for the lesser known schools or items. I also think images should be mandatory that they are on commons. It would help increase the commons. All the images have to be free anyways, so they should be on commons while they are on the Portal. It could be on commons before even being nominated. Lastly, what about something like the DYK where they put a little note (it would also help with tracking) on a image/article page "This article/image was featured on the WP:CFB portal for the month of X/week of X."? --MECU≈talk 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selected biography

I believe this section should be removed for the time being. Until we have enough high quality articles when we can then separate biographical articles from the others, this section should be removed. Other opinions?-NMajdan•talk 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing it for the time being. We can always add it back later as a way of giving the Portal a new look. Johntex\talk 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things you can do - Aloha Bowl

The "Things you can do" section says this:

"Update List of college bowl games to be accurate. For example, Aloha Bowl is listed as defunct, but it is playing this year. See NCAA football bowl games, 2006-07 for list of bowl games this year."

But I can't find any information anywhere that says the Aloha Bowl is playing. Is this a mistake? Cogswobble 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I added that last year. I probably got it confused with "Hawaiʻi Bowl". You can change the to-do to get this season's bowl article going and populated, since nothing exists yet for that whole section, and doing it before the season would be a good idea. --MECU≈talk 17:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a new lead image?

This one is starting to wear out its welcome. I spent a little time on Commons this weekend and I have a few I think are worth considering:

(A) Could be cropped just to show the tackle

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E) Would be perfect if that guy wasn't standing there - maybe a crop from his shoulder to the upper left corner

(F)

Possibly cropped to just show the left stands(G)

(H)

(I)

(J)

(Feel free to add others.) Any thoughts? I really like choices B, I, and J and I think some of the others have potential. --BigΔT 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had another thought ... how about if we auto-rotate the intro picture just like we do the selected picture? We could easily do another transcluded picture.--BigΔT 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What if we rotated through past featured images? When we got to 365, we could just set it up to auto-rotate through images... a new one each day. We could speedy up the featured image of the month to per week, especially during the season to get more images faster. MECU≈talk 01:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Portal?

What do we need to do to get this up to Featured Portal status? We have a solid rotation of articles and images. Check out Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria and we'll figure out what needs work.↔NMajdan•talk 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to reopen this portion of the discussion? Gwguffey (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Would the copyright info on Image:OklahomaSooners MiamiHurricane 20070908 LineofScrimmage Crop.jpg be an issue for Featured status? Gwguffey (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Should have an OTRS ticket for that image really. Can you send the permission in please NMajdan? I've been thinking of pursuing featured status for the portal for a few weeks, but I haven't looked into it too much. Without knowing the requirements, I'd say we're ready. MECU≈talk 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)