Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents

Archives Archive Index 2006 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject College football:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Take photos at games, spring practices, other events! Tag Talk pages with {{WikiProject College football}} Rate articles. See Category:Unassessed college football articles or College football articles by quality. Tag stubs with {{Collegefootball-stub}} or {{Collegefootball-coach-stub}} Create organizational structure for categories Add {{collegebowl}} to all bowl articles (current and defunct). See the template's talk page for the complete list. Convert tables to the more preferred "wikitable" class. See Help:Table#Style classes. Help peer review any articles currently up in the WikiProject's peer review department. Add infoboxes to all college football related biography articles. Eliminate red links at MasterTeamTable. Expand a stub Maintain College football Portal Aid in the selection of Selected Articles and Pictures at the nomination page. Add top-level information to Current sports events as it occurs. #1 ranking team games, other notable events. Recruit new members by searching Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:College_football and Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:College_football_stubs and seeing if anyone not involved with the project has made an edit of one of our designated pages. (See list: Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football#Participants). Look at their talk page, and if they don't have lots of negative things (complaints about edits, vandalism, etc), edit and add {{subst:CFBwelcome}} to the page. Finish creating all userboxes for rest of NCAA teams. See NCAA Userboxes Do NOT use logos in the userboxes, they will get removed quickly. Articles needing improvement/attention Articles to Clean Up: Glenn Parker, Brian Billick, Earnest Byner, Pat Swilling, Terrell Davis, Dan Marino, Mike Hollis, Harold "Tubby" Raymond, Donovan McNabb, W. Thomas Smith, Jr. Articles needing Expert Attention: Mark Boyer, Jeremy Lincoln, Frosty Westering, Matt Farrior, NCAA Division I-A football team records by decade, Grant Mattos, NCAA football bowl games, 1983-84, In the Bleachers, Mike Juhasz Articles needing Wikification: Big East Conference, Tommy Blake, Jake Scott, Georgia Bulldogs football under Wally Butts, George Clark (football coach) Articles with NPOV Issues: Jason Hill (American football), Shaun Alexander, Tom O'Brien (football coach), Brian Cushing, Jim Tressel, Marty Tadman, Mike Wagner, Bill Wade, Mike Renfro, Buddy Ryan Articles needing Verification: Colt David, Houston Hoover, Bluegrass Bowl, Herb Tyler, Joe Mickles, Harry Caray, Derrie Nelson, Godfrey (comedian), Doug Pederson, Big East Conference Articles needing Expanding: Rick Stockstill, Tony Jackson (football player), Mike Mularkey, 2003 Florida Gators football team, Forrest K. (Fergie) Ferguson Award, Ken Whisenhunt, Jefferson-Eppes Trophy, Harold Sebring, Louis Oliver, 2007 Clemson Tigers football team Articles needing Merge / Split issues: Capital One Bowl Results, List of schools by Bowl appearances, Battle for Nevada, 2001 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team, Art Baker (coach) Articles possibly up for Deletion or with Redirect Errors: Scooter Berry, Ricky Tucker

[edit] A new wikipedia sub project

Hi, I started a new project in a sub page but I asked a user if it was good enough to be a project, he said I should ask y'all. I would just like to say that it's well known that the Razorbacks are good historically in sports and this would make it so much more easier to keep up with all the article's. So what do you think? #1 Metallica Fan Your Hancock 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A+ on enthusiasm, that's for sure! However, I don't think that an extra project is a good move because that would end up creating lots and lots of projects within college football, and that would be difficult for us to build a more uniform look and feel to college football articles. Here's some reasons:

1. The issue we're going through right now (see above) with an administrator speedy-deleting articles is a problem and harmful to our project. If we separated projects by team, we would not have as much influence
2. Coaches tend to travel from one team to another (the Hogs own Houston Nutt for example). It is very helpful to track and maintain edits under the umbrella of college football.
3. Having one project per team runs the risk of Wikipedia "point-of-view" violations, and that would be harmful to your team pages and the project in general--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, O.k I see your point, and I think this wold be a project I would like to get envolved with! #1 Metallica Fan Your Hancock 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand Paul's concern, but if you can find others who think as you do, go for it! As long as we're creating more CFB articles, I don't really care how it's done, personally. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Time, Deletion Proposed

For the third time, Oscar Dahlene‎ has been proposed for deletion. What gives?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, if they're not kept, I'd suggest merging them into a "Coaches of XX school" article so we don't lose the information. Once you or someone else comes up with more sources, we can split out the different coaches' tenures. A similar reason is behind why we have articles like Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham — at the time, there wasn't enough information to justify year-by-year articles. I know you've put a lot of work in creating these individual coaches' articles, and I'd love to save them, but if they're not, it's an alternative. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be what the consensus ends up doing. The problem is that would be a very clumsy page. Washburn University, for example, has a history of I think 40 coaches. That makes for a real busy page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're right -- but I don't think we have much of a choice for now. Better to have the information at least on Wikipedia somewhere, even if it's not the way we'd ultimately like to have it presented. As more sources are uncovered (if someone writes a nice history of pre-1950s NAIA football coaches, forex) we can start to think about spinning them out. I just hate to say that after all the work you've done, though. Rest assured, regardless of what happens, that work is appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the work is appreciated and it's not just an ego thing for me (okay, a little) but ultimately I want what's best for Wikipedia. If we did combine the "single-season coaches" into the schools "football coach page" and then had stand-alone articles for the coaches with more information, how would that look--appear--function? That's gonna be a heckuva lotta re-writes!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to be flexible and easy to re-write. It's a matter of a few clicks and keystrokes to get your information out into another page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Some things to consider:

• Oscar Dahlene was not a NAIA coach since it was founded 1937
• Sub dividing of NCAA did not happen around late 1930’s meaning he was coaching at the highest level of College Football at the time.
• In the late 1890’s and early 1900’s teams we considered major powers were playing and losing to other schools that we now considered small college. For example Ohio State played and lost to Oberlin, Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan. West Virginia played and lost to West Virginia Wesleyan. Kentucky played and lost to Transylvania and Centre. If you look at the article Ottawa University played Kansas the year Dahlene coached them.
• Why is Oscar Dahlene less significant than Arthur Smith (an article I wrote)? Smith only won one game and that was against a club team. Was it because the administration many years latter decided to play football at the highest level? Is it because 50 or so years later Maimi was able to hire several coaches that ended up in the College Football Hall of Fame so it became know as the Cradle of Coaches? I would guess that 99.999% of Miami University fans would not even know Smith coached at the school.
• Why is Harry Jacoby a significant coach? He coached Boise State when they were a junior college and had a career losing record.
• If Ottawa University decided to move up to Division 1A? Is Oscar Dahlene now a significant coach because some administration 100 years later made a decision to emphases football?

My point is that this project has been dancing around what is a significant coach for as long as I can remember. It is kind of like pornography, you know it when you see it. What is pornography to one person is art to another. All I know is what listed on the Notability page is not very useful. something needs to be done. 09er (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

These are all very good points, ones that I hadn't considered. Would you mind posting them on the discussion page? (Will I be accused of "canvassing" for asking for that?)--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

An even bigger question is that if we can create notability guidelines, will we be able to make them stick if someone nominates an article for AfD? JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I woudl be very much in favor of creating strong notability guidelines for coaches, programs, etc. Right now, we don't include NJCAA programs or other schools outside NCAA and NAIA... but why? And why do we include NAIA? I believe we have valid reason for that, but we don't have a page really we can link to and say "here's why" ... as you say, getting them to stick would be more work and effort, but a well-defined guideline page would help--especially if we set up pre-emptive arguments and commonly asked questions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, if you're serious about this, head over to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Style Guide and write out in the notability section what you think the notability guidelines should be for coaches. We can work on it there without cluttering up this talk page too much. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just took a stab at it, let me know what you think...

Good stuff, but I don't think you need to have all those justifications. As long as we have a codified style guide and notability guidelines that were approved by consensus, justifications should be irrelevant. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kneejerk reaction! It's a lot easier to remove stuff than it is to think it up in the first place!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying to delete it! It's valuable information; I'll just move it to a "justifications" page linked to from that page. Would that work? That way, we've got a page we can show to folks while still keeping the style guide page as clean as possible. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I had been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability, maybe that would be a good place too...--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just worked the two together, trimming the "style guide" and referencing to the "notability" discussion, where I copied all the coach notability work just done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Notability Page

I've just put the final touches on the first draft of Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability. It's ready for review and discussion. Please use the notability talk page for discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... there's also another page Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability (Notice the uppercase/lowercase "Football/football").--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking pretty good... but we need more input. Come on, folks! I don't think you want just me and Paul drafting guidelines, here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... only the teams that I like are notable... yeah... that's it! Everyone please at least review the notability page and put a comment or two on its talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I'd suggest being WP:BOLD on this one and moving the current proposed Notability thing to an archive and replacing it with yours. That'll get some attention, and yours is a bit more polished, I think. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sprint Football

I don't want to take it on... but what do you guys think about Sprint Football as being a part of our project?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's interest in it, I'd say to go for it. Right now, however, we don't have enough editors to get all the CFB articles that should be written done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of bolding in stadium templates

Currently, the templates at Category:American college football venue navigational boxes (both the "by state" and "by conference" sets) use the following formatting: Bold for the stadium name followed by the common name of the university non-bolded in parenthesis.

Here is an example:

An issue has been raised at {{Michigan college football venues}} (see the edit history) that this formatting interferes with the auto-bolding of the current article and it has been suggested that it be changed to this:

I, personally, have no preference, but do feel that all 77 (48 in the "by state" subcat and 29 in the "by conference" subcat) of the templates should match and not have just the Michigan one be formatted differently. So, I bring the topic here for discussion. Thoughts would be appreciated. --Gwguffey (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(follow-up comment) The bolding format is currently the standard used in the college basketball templates in Category:College basketball venue templates and the three college baseball facility templates in Category:American college sports venue navigational boxes. --Gwguffey (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In it interest of full-disclosure, it was I who suggested/made the change to remove the bolding. Like Gwguffey said, the bolding interferes with the auto-bolding that occurs when viewing the template via one of the articles in the template. I also feel that it isn't necessary to have each of the templates have the exact same format. I'm of the belief that consistency is important within an article, but is not as important across articles. Enforcing strict consistency reduces the ability for Wikipedia articles to improve if when one article is updated, not all articles are updated. But I suppose this discussion is more of a Wikipedia-wide discussion than to college football templates. – X96lee15 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, and there is a somewhat larger issue: That being, do we want to have one page or group (in this case, Michigan fans) to dictate protocol for all of the college football project. Hmmm... Can't say I'm super-excited about the precedent. That said, I'm glad that this conversation is taking place! Suggestions are always welcome!

Back to the issue at hand, personally I like the bolding in the template. Reason? I like it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not an issue at all. It's not a "group of fans", it's one person trying to improve a single template. Also, it should have absolutely zero bearing on a discussion who I am a "fan" of. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I also like the templates as they are now with bolded stadium names. I think it's easier on the eyes and quicker for navigation. Although I'd be fine with either. Really nice work on all of those too Gwguffey! Geologik (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Geologik. It was a fun project to research. Now, let me see if I can quantify your statement about being "quicker on the eyes and easier for navigation". I am guessing that what you are drawn to is that with the bolding you are drawn to the stadium names while the school names are secondary. Thus, you can scan the stadium names and tune out the university names. Without the bolding, both of those pieces of information are given equal visual weight. So, in a perfect world, there would be a way to have neither the equal weighting nor the interference with the current article auto bold. Here's an experiment using <small> for the university names:

I'm not sure there is enough difference between the font sizes, but I'm used to the bolding, so my perception may be skewed. Anyway, it is something to discuss. (side note: this discussion would probably not be occurring if all the of stadiums had articles, as there would be no black text to get mixed up with the auto-bold) --Gwguffey (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)