Talk:List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums 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. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | |
|
Assessment Comments
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Initial article creation
Doe we have something like List of college football stadiums by atttendance? Johntex\talk 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet, but maybe List of college football stadiums would be more appropriate: have it sorted by attendance, location, most recent expansion, length of usage, etc. Thoughts? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds good. I would like to start the article but I wanted to make sure we didn't have one by a different name (our search feature being less than 100% reliable about these things). What else should be included? Home team(s)? Date of first game? Date of record attendance? Should there by two attendance columns, one for official capacity and one for record capacity (which is usually bigger)? Johntex\talk 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely home teams, either date of first game or year of completion, and record attendance (with date and/or game information if we can find it). I do think making the distinction between listed capacity and record attendance would be helpful as well. Something like this, perhaps. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That looks like a good start. I think maybe we should seperate out City/State to make it easier to find stadiums within one state.
- We might be able to get by without "Conference" since that is given by the school, but on the other hand it may be handy to skim the list and easily look for a given conference.
- Also, should we include or exclude venues like Reliant Stadium that are pro stadiums that happen to host college games from time to time? Put them in a seperate portion of the article? Include them in the main table but with a symbol indicating they don't have a regular college home team?
- Should we include defunct stadiums? Johntex\talk 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Separating city/state makes sense to me. I based having the conference column on how this site lists stadiums, which may be helpful for some. However, we do run the risk of making the table excessively wide. It could be helpful to also include a section for bowl stadiums, "all-star game" stadiums, and the like, but in a separate section from "regular season" stadiums maybe? Defunct stadiums as well - if they were used in the regular season, they may be suitable for in the "main" table with some sort of a symbol. I can help out a bit more tonight when I get back from class. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Do you mind if I play in your sandbox if I have time while you are in class? (That sounds sort of K-6, doesn't it?) Johntex\talk 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea and looks like a great start! Featured List here we come!↔NMajdan•talk 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- To make the list manageable, perhaps we should restrict it to only the home fields of Division I-Bowl Subdivision. This way, there would be a concrete criteria for inclusion, and the list would be much easier to maintain. It could also help keep the width down since we would not need a column to explain what type of stadium it is. Johntex\talk 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Be my guest! I agree that we should keep it to I-FBS only to make it definite, but we could still include defunct stadiums, no? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea and looks like a great start! Featured List here we come!↔NMajdan•talk 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Do you mind if I play in your sandbox if I have time while you are in class? (That sounds sort of K-6, doesn't it?) Johntex\talk 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Separating city/state makes sense to me. I based having the conference column on how this site lists stadiums, which may be helpful for some. However, we do run the risk of making the table excessively wide. It could be helpful to also include a section for bowl stadiums, "all-star game" stadiums, and the like, but in a separate section from "regular season" stadiums maybe? Defunct stadiums as well - if they were used in the regular season, they may be suitable for in the "main" table with some sort of a symbol. I can help out a bit more tonight when I get back from class. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely home teams, either date of first game or year of completion, and record attendance (with date and/or game information if we can find it). I do think making the distinction between listed capacity and record attendance would be helpful as well. Something like this, perhaps. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds good. I would like to start the article but I wanted to make sure we didn't have one by a different name (our search feature being less than 100% reliable about these things). What else should be included? Home team(s)? Date of first game? Date of record attendance? Should there by two attendance columns, one for official capacity and one for record capacity (which is usually bigger)? Johntex\talk 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(re-set) I think we should keep conference because it allows for better sorting (quickly find out who has the largest stadium in each conference, for example). It does look like a good start. z4ns4tsu\talk 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so that would mean we include any stadium that has ever been the home stadium for a team that is or ever was in I-FBS (or its predecesor I-A I guess). That sounds good. I agree keeping the Conference column makes sense for sorting. Johntex\talk 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, be sure to check the List of stadiums article to make sure we're being consistent. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the defunt stadiums might be a problem with respect to filling in the table. I don't know if we will be able to even find all the stadiums, much less their attendance records. Perhaps we should save the defunct stadiums for a seperate list to be made later? Johntex\talk 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm certainly fine with focusing on active stadiums for now in the interest of making sure we have a complete list of them to start. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I moved this to List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums since we now have several stadiums listed and several people working on it. I will also copy this conversation to Talk:List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums so we can continue discussion there. Johntex\talk 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm certainly fine with focusing on active stadiums for now in the interest of making sure we have a complete list of them to start. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the defunt stadiums might be a problem with respect to filling in the table. I don't know if we will be able to even find all the stadiums, much less their attendance records. Perhaps we should save the defunct stadiums for a seperate list to be made later? Johntex\talk 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of "constructed" and "upgrades"
We might need to define "constructed". Do we mean "broke ground" or "ready for play"? These may be in different calendar years. I suggest we may want to call this "first game" to avoid any confusion. Johntex\talk 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, there may be a bit of discrepancies with respect to Fields and Stadiums. While the terms are now synoymous, they weren't always. Kyle Field has been used since 1904, but a permanent seating structure was not used until 1926, though wooden stands became available shortly after the Aggies began play. Stadiums may not have been constructed until much later after football began at the field. In addition, we may also have a problem with stadiums that were demolished and rebuilt. Thoughts? BQZip01 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- For the sake of simplicity, I defined renovations/upgrades to those that are already completed. It doesn't make sense to put up estimated values since these might change. That kind of info belongs on the stadium's main page. Thoughts? BQZip01 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that sounds right for the capacities It might be a little tricky if the stadium is the current construction involves removal of some seats AND adding new ones + temporary bleachers. Texas' DKR is an example of this. It is easy to say what the biggest crowd was, but the official capacity might be a little more fluid at the moment.
- However, for the Expansion column, it seems like it might be good to indicate if work is under way. We could say something like "current" or "2006-current". Johntex\talk 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the sake of simplicity, I defined renovations/upgrades to those that are already completed. It doesn't make sense to put up estimated values since these might change. That kind of info belongs on the stadium's main page. Thoughts? BQZip01 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Default order
It seeems like even though the list is sortable we should define a default order. What would be best? Attendance? Age? Alphabetical? Johntex\talk 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say definitely alpha. Since the title is just "List of.." and not "List of...by attendance" we should stick with the most common ordering structure. Whatever we decide, we probably need to add a commented line to the code indicating how to add.↔NMajdan•talk 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me clarify - alpha by school.↔NMajdan•talk 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- So would the University of Oklahoma Sooners be under "U", "O", or "S"? Johntex\talk 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, since it is a list of the stadiums, I think alphabetical by stadium name is a better choice. That also has the advantage that it is the first column. Johntex\talk 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, wish I'd read this first. I already changed the default to capacity. I'll go through the effort to change it back if you want, but I think that capacity might be better since there are a LOT of Memorial Stadiums across the country. BQZip01 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Let's give some time for some other responses before you undo all your hard work. Johntex\talk 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever is decided, I'm fine with. Better to do it now before the list gets too long. My only issue with capacity is its so far to the right and can easily be sorted to find it. I'd go with alpha by stadium title. If they are the same, they go to school.↔NMajdan•talk 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Name sounds best followed by school on "ties" for orderBQZip01 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Order as of now should be (any help provided would be appreciated; given the speed at which people are adding, try to only move 2-3 per edit):
- Damn, wish I'd read this first. I already changed the default to capacity. I'll go through the effort to change it back if you want, but I think that capacity might be better since there are a LOT of Memorial Stadiums across the country. BQZip01 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Let me clarify - alpha by school.↔NMajdan•talk 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Amon G. Carter Stadium Beaver Stadium Bill Snyder Family Football Stadium Boone Pickens Stadium Bryant-Denny Stadium Camp Randall Stadium Carrier Dome Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium Falcon Stadium Faurot Field Floyd Casey Stadium Folsom Field Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium Heinz Field Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome Hughes Stadium Husky Stadium Jones AT&T Stadium Jordan-Hare Stadium Kinnick Stadium Kyle Field LaVell Edwards Stadium Memorial Stadium (Illinois) Memorial Stadium (Indiana) Memorial Stadium (Kansas) Memorial Stadium (Nebraska) Michigan Stadium Mountaineer Field at Milan Puskar Stadium Nippert Stadium Ohio Stadium Papa John's Cardinal Stadium Qualcomm Stadium Raymond James Stadium Rentschler Field Rice-Eccles Stadium Rose Bowl Ross-Ade Stadium Rutgers Stadium Ryan Field Sam Boyd Stadium Spartan Stadium Trice Stadium University Stadium Vaught-Hemingway Stadium War Memorial Stadium BQZip01 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expansion question
The Rose Bowl actually lost seating capacity when they added seat backs. Should that count as an "expansion"? I think it should. It is a change in the seating capacity. It just happens to be a negative change. Johntex\talk 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think expansion should be rephrased into something along the lines of latest construction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- The trouble with that is that a lot of these stadiums seem to have some form of construction every year - new scoreboard, press-box rennovations, etc. I think the capacity changes less often so it is a more meaningful change. Johntex\talk 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about "Major renovation," or is that too wishy-washy? BQZip01 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble with that is that a lot of these stadiums seem to have some form of construction every year - new scoreboard, press-box rennovations, etc. I think the capacity changes less often so it is a more meaningful change. Johntex\talk 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Record
Should the record be the largest for a football game or any event? Many of these are used for other events, and the largest size may not have been for a football game. For Folsom Field, the largest crowd was for a concert in 1977 where they could use the field to put people so it exceeds the largest football size by ~6000. --MECU≈talk 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Rose Bowl presents a related but different question: What if the home team was not involved in the record setting game? The Rose Bowl is home to UCLA but the record was USC vs OSU in the Rose Bowl. I think we should take the largest football crowd, even if it was a bowl game or an NFL game. That limits us to the stadium as configured for football. Johntex\talk 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References for Featured List
If we are going to take this to Featured List status as NMajdan suggests, what columns will need references? Certainly the official attendance and the record attendance. I think these should be available for all the stadiums. What about the Constructed and Expanded columns? This info may be harder to find. What do we think about these columns and our ability/need to reference them? Johntex\talk 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO I think most of these references should be on the stadium's main page. This way we are not duplicating efforts. BQZip01 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- That won't fly with the Featured List people though. Wikipedia articles don't count as a valid reference for other Wikipedia articles. Ideally, as we find the references for this article, we make sure to add them to the individual stadium article, and vice versa. Johntex\talk 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Sounds fine to me. BQZip01 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Does accuracy fly with the FL people? If you're going to use references, at least use current, good, and accurate gones. The person that added AU's Jordan-Hare Stadium used an old personal webpage with outdated capacity/record info as the source reference. If they'd looked at the Jordan-Hare Stadium page, they'd have seen the correct number. When it comes down to it, the definitive reference for all stadium capacities should be the official NCAA stats. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't think the NCAA's website should be the only source (although there is nothing wrong for citing multiple sources on an attribute). I have no problem getting information from the school's athletic webpage and a couple fan-websites are very reliable (I frequently cite http://soonerstats.com ).↔NMajdan•talk 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If we have sources for all columns, they should probably be cited. As you said, the FL people will want everything cited. So best to err on the side of caution.↔NMajdan•talk 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, if this is going to be an FL, we definitely need to work on the lead.↔NMajdan•talk 13:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Record Attendance Problem
The record attendance column doesn't sort well because of the added text. I recommend removing that text (before we get this list too big and have to cut a lot of it out. BQZip01 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- There does seem to be a problem. I'd hate to lose the text because I think it adds some interesting flavor. Having the reference there is definitely very important. Hopefully one of our table wizzards will know of an elegant fix to this. Johntex\talk 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem is the text included in there, as the same problem exists for the Capacity column as well. It's a known bug in the sorting program that 100,000+ won't sort properly with 99,999-. See Help:Sorting. I think removing the comma as thousands separator will solve (or at least help) this problem. --MECU≈talk 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, just seems to be the sorting bug. I tried the
- If the alphabetical sort works, but the attendance sort does not, then maybe we should go back to sorting by attendance as our default. That way, if people want to view the list alphabetically they can still do so. Johntex\talk 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I figured it out!!! It's the references that are giving it a problem. Remove those and the commas and it works like a champ. Now we just need to come to a consensus as to what to use and how to cite our sources. BQZip01 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nice work! What if we move the references to right after the name of the school instead? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Will it still work if we remove the commas but format the numbers using formatnum? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we should put the reference in with the school. For one thing, the school column is to the left of the attendance. People will commonly be looking down and right for the footnote that supports the fact. For another thing in some (unusual?) cases like the Rose Bowl the home team was not even involved in the record. I think we should first try to get the column to sort properly with the reference in the column. If that won't work, then I think we should add another column "References" and put all the references there. Johntex\talk 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I figured it out!!! It's the references that are giving it a problem. Remove those and the commas and it works like a champ. Now we just need to come to a consensus as to what to use and how to cite our sources. BQZip01 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the alphabetical sort works, but the attendance sort does not, then maybe we should go back to sorting by attendance as our default. That way, if people want to view the list alphabetically they can still do so. Johntex\talk 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the references column is the way to go. I have no idea about formatnum, but I'd really like to keep it as simple as possible for those who add stuff in the future. We should also add a comment as to our reasoning. This is not the standard way to do references and justification should be obvious to all who edit anything on this page.BQZip01 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see two troubles with breaking out the references to a seperate column:
- It is not very standard, so it may be confusing to the reader and we may get dinged when we apply for Featured List.
- In many cases, we have multiple references for a stadium. Putting them into one column makes it difficult to tell what reference supports which fact.
- The more I think about it, the more I think the best default order is to sort by the record attendance. People can easily get alphabetical order by sorting. This way, the only column that won't sort correctly is the official capacity, but it will be close to the record capacity anyway.
- It will be a pain to re-sort the table, but I can probably do it this weekend if no one objects to the change. Johntex\talk 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- JT, I think it can be made obvious by adding one colmun "references" and make 4 lines of text for each category referenced "Capacity," "Record," "Constructed," & "Expansion." It shouldn't add much more space to the table either. When it was in record order, that only makes sense if you are looking for the largest stadium. If not, it is nearly impossible to find. I realize this is nonstandard, but it seems to be the only way to easily get the sorting to work. I say we hold off changing it until people get a chance to respond. We can easily do it next weekend.
- Another option would be to make 2 small columns associated with record and capacity stating their places overall. This would make the columns EASY to sort. Thoughts? BQZip01 15:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see two troubles with breaking out the references to a seperate column:
What about two columns under each item, one for the data and one for a reference, like:
| Largest Crowd | |
|---|---|
| Record | Citation |
| 99,999 | [1] |
| 85,000 | [2] |
--MECU≈talk 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Will that sort correctly, though? Since "Largest Crowd" is the header, that will be made sortable, and it will attempt to sort the subheadings as well (even if they're formatted as headers as well, as I did above). — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, here's my attempt at the aformentioned with a few more items to sort:
| Largest Crowd | |
|---|---|
| Record | Citation |
| 99999 | [3] |
| 199999 | [4] |
| 85000 | [5] |
| 185000 | [6] |
-
-
- Interesting result. It works...sort of. Just keep pressing the button until it actually sorts it how you want it. Removing the commas doesn't seem to help. Here's a variation on a theme
-
| Record | Citation |
|---|---|
| Largest Crowd | |
| 99999 | [7] |
| 199999 | [8] |
| 85000 | [9] |
| 185000 | [10] |
-
-
- Again, that didn't work, but you can see that it has no problem sorting numbers as long as text isn't involved. When text is under the sorting block, the algorithm seems to get confused and goes by the ASCII code. Why not this?
-
| Record | Ref |
|---|---|
| 99999 | [11] |
| 199999 | [12] |
| 85000 | [13] |
| 185000 | [14] |
-
-
- or this
-
| Largest Crowd |
|---|
| Record | Ref |
|---|---|
| 99999 | [15] |
| 199999 | [16] |
| 85000 | [17] |
| 185000 | [18] |
- IMHO, I think the second to last one looks the best. We can always rename the headings, but it allows for proper sorting as one would expect in the table, but still provides the reference. A little non-standard, but all references are there. Thoughts? BQZip01 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How about (BTW, commas appear to have no discerable affect. It's the text/references that appear to f*** it up):
| Capacity | Record | Construction | Renovation | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90,000 | 99,999 | 1999 | 2000 | Capacity[19] Record[20] Construction[21] Renovation[22] |
| 190,000 | 199,999 | 1976 | 2001 | Capacity[23] Record[24] Construction[25] Renovation[26] |
| 85,000 | 89,999 | 1989 | 2002 | Capacity[27] Record[28] Construction [29] Renovation[30] |
| 20,000 | 60,456 | 1876 | 1999 | Capacity[31] Record[32] Construction[33] Renovation[34] |
-
-
-
-
-
- BQZip01 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Random section break
I don't like the four lines for each entry. It'll be over 440 lines long, which I think is too much. I wonder if we could try and trick the system into displaying an item like it's a header cell without using the ! code so it only puts the sorts into the ones we want to control? I'll try and work up an example of this later, unless someone beats me. --MECU≈talk 18:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the trouble with that is that it is reasonable to expect people will want to sort on attendance, and those are the columns that are broken for sorting. Johntex\talk 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the 4 lines for entry either, but unless we can get the sort function to work, I fail to see another viable option that clearly explains the sources. 440 lines really isn't that big. This one will be 220 lines minimum anyway. Oh, and MECU, go for it. If you can get it to work that will be exactly what we want (does everyone agree on that?). BQZip01 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the meantime, let's keep it alphabetized. BQZip01 04:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? If we sort by attendance the reader will be able to produce an alphabetical sorting if that is what they want. The opposite is not true. Johntex\talk 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because it is nearly impossible to find the stadium you want by looking down the list, unless you know the capacity crowd size. This is a list of stadiums, not the capacity/record crowds at them. If you want to change the title, fine by me. Otherwise, I think it should stay. Anyone else have 2¢ to throw in? BQZip01 07:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? If we sort by attendance the reader will be able to produce an alphabetical sorting if that is what they want. The opposite is not true. Johntex\talk 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the meantime, let's keep it alphabetized. BQZip01 04:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the 4 lines for entry either, but unless we can get the sort function to work, I fail to see another viable option that clearly explains the sources. 440 lines really isn't that big. This one will be 220 lines minimum anyway. Oh, and MECU, go for it. If you can get it to work that will be exactly what we want (does everyone agree on that?). BQZip01 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
| Stadium | City | State | Team(s) | Conference | Capacity | Record Crowd1 | Constructed | Expansion2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Record | Cite | Record | Cite | Year | Cite | Year | Cite | |||||
| Amon G. Carter Stadium | Fort Worth | TX | TCU | Mountain West | 46000 | [35] | 47280 | (1984-11-17 vs. Texas)[35] | 1929 | [35] | 2002 | [35] |
| Arizona Stadium | Tucson | AZ | Arizona | Pac-10 | 56000 | [36] | 84759 | bogus value for testing | 1928 | [36] | 1988 | [36] |
| Beaver Stadium | University Park | PA | Penn State | Big Ten | 107282 | 110753 | (2002-09-14 vs. Nebraska)[37] | 1909 | 2001 | |||
That didn't turn out like I'd hoped. You can't control where the sort marker goes, it's always in the first line. You can't use rowspan="2" partially on the first row, or when you sort it gets jacked up. The sort for this way works, if you click enough times, for the Capacity/Record, but not for Record Crowd/Record so I dunno.
- BQZip, Johntex is saying that we should sort by record size because we can't get the sort function to do that for us. If someone wants the table alphabetically the sort function will do that, so if you have a hard time finding a stadium you're looking for, you can just sort it alphabetically, but then you couldn't re-sort back to record because it won't work that way, but if you reload the page--presto. --MECU≈talk 13:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I hear what JT is saying, but I disagree (based on the title). In addition, I know us wikipedians know how to resort the f***ing chart, but I am not sure if a casual user would even know how to sort them. I'd like to find a solution that doesn't become a nightmare. How about the following?: BQZip01 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
| Stadium | City | State | Team(s) | Conference | Capacity | Capacity Citation |
Record | Record Citation |
Constructed | Constructed Citation |
Expanded | Expansion Citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amon G. Carter Stadium | Fort Worth | TX | TCU | Mountain West | 46,000 | [35] | 47,280 | (1984-11-17 vs. Texas)[35] | 1929 | [35] | 2002 | [35] |
| Arizona Stadium | Tucson | AZ | Arizona | Pac-10 | 56,000 | [36] | 84,759 | bogus value for testing | 1928 | [36] | 1988 | [36] |
| Beaver Stadium | University Park | PA | Penn State | Big Ten | 107,282 | 110,753 | (2002-09-14 vs. Nebraska)[38] | 1909 | 2001 |
I like this one. I just discovered Template:Nts so we can use commas by using this template. I updated the table above with this template. I wish we could turn off sortable for selected columns (like the citation ones), but this doesn't seem to be a capability. Anyone know how to report this as a "bug" or request this? --MECU≈talk 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need to include the teams that were playing? It's just a matter of clicking the link if you are interested. Why not include the entire date on construction? on renovations? I just think it is too much info that isn't necessary on this page. I'm as proud as the next guy about my team's record crowd, but is the date and the opposing team's name really needed? BQZip01 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some replies from Johntex:
- I think it is very important that it be easy to sort the table to find the biggest stadium. My original motivation for suggesting that we create this article was precisely because of a desire to have an easy reference as to whether stadium A is officially bigger than stadium B.
- If someone wants to rename the list to implicitely include attendance in the title, I am fine with that. In fact, my original proposal was for something like List of college football stadiums by attendance. Having said that, I don't think it is necesary at all. I think the current title is a more concise title. I don't see any reason for the title to slavishly reflect exactly how we are sorting the table.
- I think that listing the opponent for the record crowd is useful and moderately important. It is not critical, but it is helpful information to provide here, vs making someone go off and check external soruces.
- I think that including the full date on a construction is simply not feasible. It is too hard to tell what date construction begins and ends.
- That my four cents for now. Johntex\talk 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Volunteers for conference inclusion
I'll take the Big 12. Anyone else want to tackle (no pun intended) a specific conference? BQZip01 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since I added the Rose Bowl I guess I can work on some more of the Pac 10 stadiums. Johntex\talk 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm working on finishing coverage of Big 10 stadiums, after which I can move on to the Big East. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll get to the Big 12 schools later today, but might not have all of the info, but I'll try. BQZip01 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent uncited changes
I don't know who added the recent changes. They're great, but they REALLY need a reference. Please add where you found the information so we can check it as information changes from year to year. — BQZip01 — talk 02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beaver Stadium's Construction Date
While the stadium was construction in 1909, the stadium was moved prior to the 1960 season. Does the stadium's change in placement alter the constructed date.
Source: http://gopsusports.cstv.com/facilities/beaver-stadium.html
-Colslax 05:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- If it was the same structure, but moved, then yes. Otherwise, no. We are talking about two DIFFERENT structures with the same name/function. — BQZip01 — talk 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- From the link: New Beaver Field was the Lions' home through the 1959 season, after which the 30,000-seat stadium was dismantled and moved in 700 pieces one mile to the east side of campus. The old stadium was reassembled with 16,000 additional seats to form Beaver Stadium. Despite an addition, it sounds like the stadium was moved, just to a new location. -Colslax 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
