Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Feb2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

College Football Barnstar Awarded

I just wanted to state publicly that I've awarded the CFB Barnstar to TonyTheTiger for his outstanding contributions to Michigan Wolverines football articles, and in particular the striking number of GA and (hopefully soon) FA contributions to the project. Keep up the great work, Tony! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats TonyTheTiger!↔NMajdan•talk 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC Response Team

I've been having some trouble getting comments on some football-related FACs, and I know other writers have had that same problem in the past. Would it be worthwhile to compile a list of editors who are willing to comment on football FACs regardless of subject? I know that I'm move than willing to coordinate the list, but it might be something that's nice to have. What do you all think? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

College Football games category and bowl games

(Lifted thread from User talk:Nmajdan)

Nmajdan, It makes sense that you are adding the College football games category to the Rose Bowl article. However, that category has a subcategory of Rose Bowl where all the games are collected. Is there a way to have the category on the articles, but not have all the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Fiesta bowl games that have their own category cluttering up the list? Thanks, Group29 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, its just having an article in the Rose Bowl category may not imply it is a game. There are other articles in the Rose Bowl category that are not individual games. Individual games should be in the category. I personally don't think the Rose Bowl category (and Fiesta Bowl and whatever other Bowl category) should be in the CFB games category as not all of the articles in those categories are games. Am I making sense?↔NMajdan•talk 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have thought the same thing about the mixture. Would it be better if there were a separate Rose Bowl games category? Then it could go in both the Rose Bowl category and college football games category. Group29 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Might be best to take this convo to WT:CFB.↔NMajdan•talk 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a Wikipedia category for specific notable college football games. With all the bowl games being added, I recommend that some new categories be created: Orange Bowl games, Rose Bowl games, Fiesta Bowl games, etc. There are existing categories like Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl where games also appear, but these categories also have non game articles like stadiums, broadcasters and so forth. So 2008 Rose Bowl would appear in the both categories of Rose Bowl and Rose Bowl games. Rose Bowl games category becomes a sub category of college football games and perhaps bowl games. This is just a short synopsis to give the idea. Any further suggestions? Thanks, Group29 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; could we also get link boxes created for each of the bowl games? There's some for the big bowl games — Orange, Sun, Sugar, etc., but there aren't any for a lot of the newer games, and even some of the older ones. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond in more detail later, but we're bordering on over-categorization here. Also, articles should not appear in both a category and sub-category.↔NMajdan•talk 03:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

regarding Image:UGA$!logo.png

The above image is used in numerous articles. It is a copyrighted logo. As such, it falls under WP:NFCC. Item 10c on that page states: The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. Right now, the image only has one rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Make sure stub articles have a stub template

A bot is getting ready to go through the list of unassessed articles and will tag any article with a stub template as a stub. So, if you come across any CFB-related articles that do not have a stub template, please add one. Even if its the generic {{stub}} template, at least it will assess it for the project. The most common stubs for this project are {{collegefootball-stub}} and {{collegefootball-coach-stub}}.↔NMajdan•talk 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another assessment update

Like I said above, a bot just went through and assessed a bunch of our articles. Looks like it assessed around 4,300 articles. We still have 1,500 left, but that is much more manageable than 5,800.↔NMajdan•talk 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm still running across occasional college football articles without the banner, but they're far more rare. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FL Classification

We've got an "FL" Classification for featured lists on the college football banner, but there's currently no way to display the number of these on the assessment page. Is there a way to fix that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with simply "Featured" status?↔NMajdan•talk 13:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing. I simply saw that FL was an option, and used it. If we don't need to use it, then we probably shouldn't have it as an option for the banner in order to keep from confusing people like myself. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think somebody else also created other classes like Template class. We've always used NA class for these. The banner detects if its template-space and categorizes it as such.↔NMajdan•talk 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I like the idea of “FL” Classification. Lists are not articles. It is confusing especially when you consider that “List” can not be “GA”. I know some projects have a “List” Classification for all lists that are not “FL”. I don’t know if we need to do that but “FL” and “FA” are not the same thing. As for displaying the “FL” on the assessment page. I believe a bot recalculates the number about every four or five days. I am not positive on that so check it in a few days. 09er (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean to say that there isn't even a spot for an FL classification on the assessment scoresheet. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Something has gone SERIOUSLY WRONG with the "WikiProject College Football" userbox

The user box denoting that a player's page is in the College Football project is out of shape, and no longer within the confines of a correctly structured wiki userbox. This is affecting ALL of the players' TALK pages. Search any player, and look at any TALK page to see what is going wrong. Please fix! 12Dorsa152 (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an issue.72.192.93.126 (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see it on Talk:Brandon Hogan. I noticed it is an auto rated article. I do not know if that the problem. 09er (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is fixed. There was an extra space at the start of a sentence, which causes a problem like:
 is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to...
Woody found it and fixed it. Johntex\talk 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, I was looking at the actual userbox, not the talk page template.↔NMajdan•talk 15:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with 2008 Tennessee article

I want to get out in front of the article this year in order for it to not be a burden later. My goal is for the article to grow into a GA once there is enough content. Any suggestions on what to do up front now? CJC47 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All you can do is some preseason stuff. Any known coaching changes, any big news so far in the preseason, write-up on the recruiting period that just ended, 2-3 sentence previews for each game, the roster, etc.↔NMajdan•talk 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi CJC47, I like to add the following to pre-season articles:
Recap of how they did last season (won/loss, bowl game, final rankings)
Roster (once known). I have no objection to a partial roster listing returning players at their old positions, so long as it is marked as such.
Key players that graduated or went Pro early
Information on each game in the season, such as:
Have the two teams met before?
What is the series record?
What happened the last time?
Anything unusual - such as a new stadium opening as was the case with the 2006 UT (the other UT for you I guess) vs. UCF
Please see 2008 Texas Longhorn football team as an example. It has passed 100 footnotes just with the pre-season info.
I personally think that pre-season articles should be eligible for GA if they are complete as of the time of writing. We do have GAs on other future topics such as planned space missions. Unfortunately, the folks at GA have not yet agreed to that reasoning. Johntex\talk 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I was against one of the GAs you are speaking of. This far in advance, I would have no issues with an article about the next football season being promoted to GA. There is still pretty much 6+ months until it will begin to be heavily edited. But, the one I was involved with last time was up for GA with less than a month until the season starts. In my opinion, that makes the article unstable since its heaviest time for editing is quickly approaching.↔NMajdan•talk 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be OK with that. In my opinion, if the article meets GA standards today it should be recognized as such. If it fails to meet them at some point in the future (I.e. if it becomes unstable or inaccurate during the season) then it could be demoted at that point. Johntex\talk 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable schools with athletics pages, but no football page

I see that Missouri is listed here, but I know there is this article 2008 Missouri Tigers football team. Does this count? Being new here, I wasn't going to edit this WikiProject's main page without an ok from some of the regular editors. Later, Rocketmaniac RT 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The "football" article would be Missouri Tigers football for that school. The hierarchy goes like:
University of Missouri
Missouri Tigers
Missouri Tigers football
2008 Missouri Tigers football team
Since it exists, you could remove Missouri from that list. And you don't need permission to edit the main page. Edit away. And welcome! MECU≈talk 13:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it's a redirect to the Missouri Tigers article. Still needs to be made. The Master Team table may help you see things like this. MECU≈talk 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That Master Team Table is great. I'm going to add some of the 2008 season team articles to it. Rocketmaniac RT 14:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of "team season" links to the Master Team Table, including add Central Florida & Western Kentucky to the table. Rocketmaniac RT 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've now removed UCF as it was listed as just Central Florida and I totally missed it. (I guess I need some more coffee) Rocketmaniac RT 18:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Statistics in Bowl Games

I was looking throught this last year's bowls games and I realized that most of the articles don't list any statistics. And those that do, don't have a standard format. Shouldn't there be a standard format for bowl game statistics? If statistics are important enough to add, should one use the format list here Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format? or is there a different idea? Any thoughts and ideas? Rocketmaniac RT 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This one's right up my alley. We have not one, but two FA-class bowl game articles now, and both have fairly extensive statistics sections. I'd suggest checking out 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl and 2008 Orange Bowl for an idea of what works. There's also 2007 Hawaii Bowl, which follows the same format, and I'd be happy to help/give input on any bowl game article you're working on right now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I added some stats to 2007 Poinsettia Bowl. When I got to adding the Individual Leaders the formating for the article got all messed up. The next section, "Post-game effects" came up next to the Individual Leaders table. I ended up having to add a ton of Line Breaks to make the "Post-game effects" go down and follow the Individual Leaders table. If anyone knows how to make this look right, please help me out. Thanks, Rocketmaniac RT 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Line breaks are a good options, but I've always thought text explanations were the best option. To me, the statistics section is the section where you get to interpret the game's actual plays (given in the game recap section) into plain english for readers. You can point to the best players, the most telling statistic — usually turnovers — and point out exceptional performances. I actually wrote the game summary section for that article. I'm glad to see someone's picked it back up again, and don't hesitate to ask if there's anything I can do for you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is the little known and oft-used AmFootballScoreSummaryStart which may help. I could swear I did a statistics template system as well but can't find it now. MECU≈talk 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. With all of these tables & templates we should be able to make some great articles. Rocketmaniac RT 14:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley FAC

If there is a place to announce FACs for this project, I can not find it. Tyrone Wheatley may be the first college football player bio and first modern NFL player bio to achieve FA according to talk page project tags. Only Jim Thorpe is an FA currently. Please come comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Tell everyone you know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind everyone that this FAC is still going on. The article has improved greatly since it was first nominated, but there's still room for people to check it out, comment, support, or suggest improvements. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Logo inclusion in season articles

Are logos on season articles absolutely necessary? They seem to be just mere decoration and don't add anything to the article. If a reader doesn't know how a certain team's logo looks like, they can go to the team's parent article. I realize that some teams may not mind the usage of their logos here, but this is a free encyclopedia. WP:NCC says we are to "produce a quality encyclopedia, striving to use media as much as needed for that purpose." Logos are not necessary when chronicling a certain season. Besides, all the professional sport articles don't use logos on their season pages - see 2007 New York Giants season, 2007-08 Boston Celtics season, 2007 Boston Red Sox season, 2007-08 New Jersey Devils season, and Chelsea F.C. season 2007-08. Also refer to the centralized discussion here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • We should definitely continue to use the logos. There are several reasons for this:
  1. The logo does help the reader to identify the team in question. Think about teams you are not that familiar with: Is it Yale that has the Bulldog?
  2. Showing the logo helps to describe the team - they played under this logo during the season. Logos do change, so this is important.
  3. The use of the logos is legal and customary in similar reporting.
  4. Logos make the encyclopedia page more professional looking and more interesting. We should not forget that our primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Our readers are our most important constituency. We should give them the best encyclopedia we can give them.
  5. Even looking at the creation of free content, the logos do not cause harm to that aim. By definition, there is no free alternative to a logo. Anything that is sufficiently similar would still be covered by the owner's trademark. Anything that is sufficiently different would be original research.
  6. The centralized discussion that you link to did not form a consensus to remove the logos. This has been discussed previously and a consensus to remove the logos has never formed.
  7. In terms of current usage, I would point out that 2005 Texas Longhorn football team uses the appropriate logo correctly, and this is a Featured Article.
  8. Furthermore, even single game articles should use the logos of the teams. 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game uses both logos and it has passed GA. 2006 Alamo Bowl uses the bowl logo, etc.
  9. In all those articles, the logo has not been any obstacle to adding free images related to the events in question.

The logos are helpful to the reader, and they do absolutely no harm at all. Hence, we should use them on all applicable articles. Johntex\talk 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While we're talking logos, I wanted to let everyone know that the logo on the Grambling Tigers article is going to be deleted. See Talk:Grambling Tigers. Can anyone help with making sure this logo does not get deleted? Seancp (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The Grambling logo was fixed some time ago, it's just that no one put a message on the talk page of the article. It should be OK. Johntex\talk 15:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Johntex completely.↔NMajdan•talk 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. The articles clear up this ambiguity by including the team’s nickname in the title (e.g. Texas Longhorn football team)
  2. A picture like this is more indicative of the logo the team played under, since the logo is part of the uniform.
  3. The use may be fine elsewhere, but like I said, this is Wikipedia. Our goal here is to strive to limit non-free content use while producing a quality encyclopedia at the same time. Team logos don't help readers better understand a team's performance in a certain season.
  4. Pictures from live games make the encyclopedia far more professional looking and interesting. All of us have had success in requesting Flickr users to relicense their pictures, so finding quality pictures should not be a problem, as there are several of them on Flickr.
  5. The free alternative to a logo are snapshots from games. These pictures may contain the logo on the players' uniforms, but the difference here is that the subject of these photos are the players, not the logo. The players just happen to be wearing a mandatory uniform that contains the logo. The logo on the uniform itself just happens to be incidental, so the photo would not be a derivative work.
  6. I agree that the centralized discussion did not have a consensus. I just wanted to point out the good points made in it that should be addressed in this discussion as well.
  7. , 8. and 9. Good and featured articles may have minor problems that were never addressed in their respective reviews.

In addition to addressing the points above, please tell me why every other sports article (as shown above) does not add a logo to the season infobox, whereas college football articles do. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or in this case, is different) is never a good argument. Add my pile on support to Johntex and Nmajdan side. MECU≈talk 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
3. No. Our goal is to make the best encyclopedia possible. We allow fair use images to meet that goal.
4. Having the logo does absolutely nothing to discourage live pictures. All the articles I have pointed to, plus many others such as 2006 Texas Longhorn football team, 2007 Texas Longhorn football team, 2007 Oklahoma Sooners football team, etc - all have great photos of the games, stadiums, events, etc.
5. No. A logo is very different from a live photo. One does not in any way take the place of the other.
As to your question about why those other articles do not have the logo, that is very simple. Those articles are deficient and need to have the logo added. Johntex\talk 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly get really tired of this discussion. Seems like I've been involved in so many of these exact same arguments since I joined. The Foundation would make this wiki work a lot smoother if they came out and set guidelines rather than waiting for a "community consensus" which has shown itself on numerous occasions is not going to happen.↔NMajdan•talk 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually wondering why the other sports articles don't add logos to their infoboxes. It seemed to be the standard of Wikipedia since ALL of them (except college football and basketball) do not include the logo in the season infobox. Anyhow, enough with that. Here's another issue: Universities don't allow the use of their logos without their permission. For example, the UT website states this. I have contacted the associate athletic director to ask whether the logo may be used across our articles. I am waiting for his response and will post it here once I receive it. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need their permission if we're making fair use of the logo. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I usually avoid commenting on things like this, but these types of personal crusades drive me absolutely insane. Is it the goal of Wikipedia to drive people, who stive to create decent and informative articles, away? It's a logo - get over it and move on. Personally I like seeing them in the season articles for a nice visual reference.
That was me..doh. Geologik (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ElKevbo. People can make all sorts of claims but that does not mean they have the legal right to back up what they are saying. US Fair Use law gives certain rights. For instance, you can photocopy a few pages of a book without needing the permission of the book author or publisher. If the publisher or author put in giant print on the cover, "You may not photocopy any portion of this book", such a statement would basically be meaningless. They can't make a statement and have that statement trump the law. It is the same with a university logo. If our usage is protected by law then their statements do not trump our rights under the law. (IANAL) Johntex\talk 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
We are protected by the fair use law, but it only allows limited use of such material. Besides, there are several mirrors and forks of Wikipedia out there (see this list) that reproduce these logos and other copyrighted material on their pages. I don't think we are limiting the use there. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We are not responsible for other websites. The reuse policy is that they reusers must determine how fair use applies to them. Also, regarding your comment on my talk page BlueAg09, I may have not stated my reason above, but it doesn't mean I don't have one. Read the previous discussions on this for my reasons. Further, when someone says "... per (user)", it means they agree with that user's comments and reasoning, so my reasons are listed, just not by me. MECU≈talk 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We are protected to the same extent that ESPN or another news agency is protected. They routinely use logos in their stories. How many times have you seen a Top25 list at ESPN.com or SI.com that did not show each and every team logo next to their ranking? Also, as Mecu says, we are not responsible for what other people do with our content. They are freeloaders to begin with and it is not worth one minute of our time to worry about them. They are responsible for taking care of themselves. 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntex (talk • contribs)

Okay, I have been going through the edit histories of the other sport season infoboxes, just to read the rationale of editors when they removed the logo/image parameter. One user cited WP:NONFREE criterion No. 9, which this page also covers. Part of the fine print says "From the Non-free content criteria Policy, Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), portals, user pages, categories, Help, MediaWiki, or the Project namespace." It also adds "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy.". There has been no broad consensus on the use of team logos on season infoboxes, especially not in the centralized discussion I linked to above. Also note I cited Wikipedia policy. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think you may be confusing an infobox with a template. Placing the logo inside an infobox is 100% permitted. The infobox is in an article in article space. A template is different. A template like Template:WikiProject College football goes on Talk pages and therefore should avoid fair use images. There is no problem with infoboxes. Johntex\talk 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you telling me that infoboxes are not templates? The CFB season infobox itself is called Template:NCAATeamFootballSeason. Wikipedia calls them templates as well. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A fair use image cannot be in the template code, but it can be defined in the actual template usage. For instance, you can't have in the template code {{{image|FairUseLogo.png}}} but you can have {{{image|FreeUseImage.png}}} and then define |image= in the actual transclusion of the template. Does that make sense? On a side note, it seems with all this energy you're putting in to this, it would be better spent on actually improving the content of some articles.↔NMajdan•talk 22:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry BlueAg, if Nmajdan and I get a bit strident about this. I think you are asking fair questions and that you are legitimately interested in seeing if everything is OK. It is just a tad frustrating because other people have asked these same questions and they have never been able to form even a majority opinion (let alone consensus) that there is any advantage at all to trying to reduce the usage of logos.
Nmajdan explained the issue about Template-space pretty well. Better than my first attempt. Just in case there is still any confusion I will elaborate a little:
What I mean is that the logo does not appear on the page at Template:NCAATeamFootballSeason. Therefore, the logo is not in Template space at all. The logo is in the article space. The only time anyone sees the logo is when they are reading the article. It happens to appear inside something called an infobox, but that is irrelevant. The fact that there is some formatting around the image is irrelevant. The image is in article space, not template space.
If you look at a Template like Template:UTTalk - the image there is a free use image. In that case, the image goes onto the template itself, and it also appears on talk pages. A fair use logo such as the University seal would not be appropriate there. Johntex\talk 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I had understood when Nmajdan explained. This page is a little unclear about that (as another user indicated here) Anyway, I apologize for the nuisance I caused here. This has been something that's been bugging me for some months so I figured I'd bring it up now. You all can rest easy now. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New to do lists

Thanks to SatyrBot (talk · contribs), we now have a to-do list that will be updated once a week. There is a short version and a long version. I have taken the liberty of adding the short version to our to do list at the top of this talk page and a link to the full version to our navigation sidebar. Both will be updated everything Thursday. Feel free to add the short version (or long version if so inclined) to your own talk page.↔NMajdan•talk 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see its already working. Great work Mecu!↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Should I be removing the articles from that list when I (or anyone) goes through them? MECU≈talk 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, since this is working well, should I ask that it be updated more than once a week? If so, how often? Or, feel free to make the request yourself.↔NMajdan•talk 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

School name in coach's box/etc

Do we have a policy for the name of the school to use in articles and specifically the "coach's box" ??

EXAMPLE: Ralph Graham was a head coach at the "University of Wichita" which later became Wichita State University -- same school, just the name changed. A user is going through (making good faith edits, I might add) changing the school name based on the time period.

Hey, it's a very strong attention to detail, that's for sure--and I'm proud of the user for thinking that way! But... does it help or hinder our project?--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, if I were an arguing man (which I am), I'd say that the precedent has already been set with our college football season naming conventions. We've renamed the main link to college football seasons from just college football season to Division I to Division I-A to FBS. I imagine we should probably use the multiple-name approach, as awkward as it is. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why can't you just make it link to the Wichita State University article but have it display "University of Wichita," like this: University of Wichita Seancp (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That is what I would do.↔NMajdan•talk 14:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem... that's what the editor was doing, I just wanted to get feedback from everyone else. It looks confusing to me, but if I'm the only one who thinks so then let's do it that way!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)