Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jul2006

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

Proposed welcome to the project message

I don't know (not that I have looked at too terribly many) if any other WikiProjects have a welcome message ... but I wonder if it would be worthwhile ... I thought I would put something together:

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football! We are glad you decided to sign up and we hope you enjoy reading and editing college football articles.

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

P.S. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding {{User WikiProject CFB}} to your user page. It lets other users who visit your page know about your involvement with the project.

Any thoughts? BigDT 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree we should have one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is one of the best WikiProjects I know of. If you can think of it, they have probably either already done it, or figured out why doing it is a bad idea - maybe both. You can see their welcome message here. Johntex\talk 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Their message is much better ... try this on for size (blatantly stealing their's)

Hi, and welcome to the College football Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love college football and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

Thoughts? BigDT 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks great!Bornagain4 03:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Football Image

Could someone find a football image to use that doesn't have NFL on it? Mecu 16:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this:
 This college football-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

I was looking through my football photos ... I can take a picture of a plain football at some point ... but really, it might be better for us to just use something totally different to distinguish ourselves from WP:NFL. This guy isn't spectacular - I'm looking through my photos to see if I have anything better that isn't obviously a Virginia Tech player. Any thoughts? BigDT 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but finding the ONE college fooball unique item that is non-team specific may be difficult. Except the national championship crystal football? Though that's D1-A specific. I just thought using an image with NFL on the ball was lazy. Having NCAA on it would be better, were anyone actually to look that close. Mecu 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There's this one, from the same site as the NFL Football image: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/214308 .--NMajdan•talk 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the football player, I think a football may be a little to ordinary. Bornagain4 13:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What really might be nice if anyone has the artistic skills to create it would be a pennant (like [1]) with a football or helmet on it. That would be obviously college and obviously football. (Obviously, it needs to be plain colors and not have any team logos.) BigDT 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can take a picture of the Orangish looking ball used by the Wilson teams (Not Nike Teams) is that a good idea? CJC47 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Let us know and post here when you get it on WP. --Mecu 16:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New template?

I think we should have a template for college athletic entries. It could have college, nickname, mascot, school colors, fight song, and athletic conference(s). -PhattyFatt 02:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Seperate template/category for individual team articles

Q: do we want a separate template/category for individual team articles (eg Auburn Tigers football)?
Category I think a category for each team would be fine. A template might be overkill for every team (especially smaller/less popular ones). Though do we need this at all since everything in the category would be listed on a "(School) football" page anyways? Mecu 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely believe there should be a category. As for a template, it might not be a bad idea to have something by conference. For example, right now, most/all conferences have something like {{Atlantic Coast Conference}}. What might be nice would be to have separate ones for {{Atlantic Coast Conference athletics}}, {{Atlantic Coast Conference football}}, and {{Atlantic Coast Conference basketball}}. If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Atlantic Coast Conference, it's too inconsistent where it is used. Having separate templates for the school, athletics, football, and roundball pages might be overkill, but it would be very nice from an ease of navigation standpoint. BigDT 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What I think we should do is create subcategories for College football stubs, such as stubs for coaches, players, and team pages by conference. Bornagain4 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
See the relevant discussion at WP:WSS/P ... there was opposition to adding anything more than just {{collegefootball-coach-stub}}. Once we add that, we can re-present if there is a need. Personally, I'd like to see {{collegefootball-player-stub}}. Plenty of players either never go to the pros or, if they do, their notability is strictly from college. Consider Eric Crouch or Corey Moore. It would be more useful to tag them as {{collegefootball-player-stub}} as neither was in the pros long at all. BigDT 21:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New Stubs

I tried to create a stub template for college football players, and when I added the stub to the page Marlin Jackson, it added the page to Category:College football stubs. I believe there was something in the markup that I copied that directed the article to that category, but I don't know. Can someone please explain this to me!Bornagain4 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I just read the above discussion, I am sorry. Bornagain4 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard format for season pages

A discussion has been started at Talk:2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team about a standard format for team-specific season pages and the tables that go into them. Please drop by and add your comments so that we can get a good idea of a group consensus before too many of these pages are created. Z4ns4tsu 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not picky on formatting ... but one comment ... I don't know that I would rate a team page as a "high priority" college football article. BigDT 23:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
My thought with rating them high priority is that they're current, likely to be visited by users looking for information on that subject (this years team and historical information). They should never be Top importance because they are too narrow. Mecu 00:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed my mind. General team pages should be High, but year-specific pages should be Mid. Editors will probably naturally want to edit/maintain these yearly pages so they shouldn't need to be as high priority. That said, I self rated the 2006 Colorado page Low. So I guess I could be swayed whatever the consensis is. But should be Mid at most. Mecu 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
At some point, we need to figure out a notability guideline for year pages. I think we all could agree that we don't need 119 team football and 300+ team basketball pages this year. I realize that Fifth offensive series in 2006 Oklahoma - Texas is probably more notable than half of the stuff on WP ... but still ... we need a guideline of some sort lest this stuff balloon into 119 unmaintainable team articles. BigDT 01:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Must...resist...creating....new....stub...on...Fifth offensive series in 2006 Oklahoma - Texas...whew, what willpower.  :-) - Johntex\talk 01:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't rate the page, so I can't tell you what decision process went into making it "high" instead of "mid" or "low." I think, from looking at the guidlines, that it was because it is an article pertaining to the current season, so it needs to be kept up until the season ends. As for which schools should have such articles, I think the top 25 to 30 programs would be a good start, but I also think that we shouldn't afd an article just because that school isn't a top school. My thought is pretty much, "if an alumnus wants to make the page, let 'em." Z4ns4tsu 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought I read somewhere that there's a precedent that not every team every season should have a page, that only notable events/teams/years should (Such as the 2005 Texas Longhorns). There's a comment on the 2006 Texas Longhorns to this effect, but I can't find any policy or information about where it's stated that. I half agree if someone is willing to put the effort into making and maintaining the page (with regular updates throughout the season, weekly). If someone starts a page and gives up on it half-way through the season we may reccommend for delete. Having 50 half-finished pages to inherit and maintain would become too much work for our small crew, especially with teams we're not that interested in. Mecu 02:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I do agree. I will help keep the 2006 OU page up to date, but we should not have one for every team unless we have people who are willing to keep it up to date. Should we use {{Maintained}} on the pages to show who will be keeping it up to date?--NMajdan•talk 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the Maintained template is a good idea. As I said before, I have no problem with pages for each individual season as long as that page is kept up to date and maintained and the project in general is not expected to do it. These pages should be a focussed effort of a few individuals. Maybe, just for our own record keeping, we could create a category in the project for season pages? That way we could keep better track of which pages have been created and who is keeping them up to date. Z4ns4tsu 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so where should we collect all the current pages? Should we have a template for them? When do we decide if it's not being maintained? 2 games? 3 games? Should they be required to be a part of the project? They should be registered users, and must have the maintain notice on there at minumum. Mecu 15:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say that after two missed games, the page is out of date and pretty much worthless. That is where I would put the limit. As for requiring that maintainers be a part of the project, it is un-enforcable but a good idea. That way we can at least say that the page is actually under our oversight. Z4ns4tsu 16:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm personally not a big fan of the {{Maintained}} template. If somone is wathcing the article, then they should see a notice left on the article's Talk page. I would rather see the discussion happen at the article in question rather than off on a User-Talk page. Johntex\talk 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the point with the {{Maintained}} is to just let us know who is taking care of it, so that if it goes stale, we could email them and say come update it or it will be deleted. Mecu 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but my point is that is completely not needed. If we put a notice on the talk page, if anyone is maintaining the article, they should see it. It is also easy to check the history and see who created it and who the recent contributors have been. Johntex\talk 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of the {{Maintained}} template, as far as I'm concerned, is becasue these articles have a real possibility of being nominated for afd. As long as someone is willing to put their name to it and, in a way, commit to keeping it up to date, the afd arguments become very weak. Z4ns4tsu 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) That is an interesting hypothesis. Having participated in many AfD debates, I don't believe such a template will make a difference. There is often one or a few contributors to the article who will argue vigorously that they will maintain it. In the end, that is not usually a determining factor. Plenty of stuff still gets labeled as being non-notable and deleted as cruft. Having said that, the {{Maintained}} exists and so obviously some people find it useful. I just don't happen to be among them! Johntex\talk 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
PS, here is an example of an aritcle up for AfD where an author (me) is speaking up to keep the article, but that is not making much difference to the article. I doubt many of these commentors have even read the article, much less the talk page associated with the article. A {{Maintained}} template is not much defense agaist people who want to invoke Wikipedia:Recentism to delete an article. Johntex\talk 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think having them put it on the page lets them and us know they agree to the rules. User:TheMile just created the 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team. By having him put the {{Maintained}} on there we know who to directly contact without having to do any research or guessing and by doing so he (or she) would have agreed to maintain it per our rules. In the end, what can it hurt having it on there? Mecu 19:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition, all he did was copy the 2006 Colorado format and change the intro and schedule and there's no other information in there. Granted he (or she) may intend to add information later (within a week?), but how do we know that unless they fillout the agreement? Maybe they just intend to update the schedule without any comments on the games which wouldn't be acceptable for WP. Mecu 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I do intend on doing so, and as such added the Maintained template. TheMile 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, we have no power to make "rules". No one owns any article. See WP:OWN. It is true that we can come up with guidelines and then those will carry some weight. However, we have not actually come up with any guidelines yet!
In my opinion, the {tl|Maintained}} is harmful because it implies that someone "owns" the article or that their opinion carries more weight. I have read the talk page of that template, and I know that the talk page specifically states that the template does not contradict WP:OWN, but a new user will have no way to know this, and it may be intimidating.
In addition, they can just as easily apply the template and then walk away from the article as they can walk away from the article without applying the template. The template is no guarantee at all that they will improve the article.
Articles here are open for editing to all, we shouldn't be relying on a system of "uh-oh, this article is not being maintained, I'll contact so-and-so about it." If somoene sees an article that is not maintained, they would be better off to do any of the following rather than contact an individual editor: (a) improve it (b) put a notice on its talk page (as opposed to an individual editor's talk page) so that anyone interested can step in (c) post to one or more relevant projects or portals (d) request peer review (e) {{prod}} it (f) AfD it... More eyeballs are better. That is the wiki way. Johntex\talk 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No one owns an article. I don't see that as being a problem. We haven't created any policy yet, but I thought that's what we're trying to do? I wouldn't want to inherit 117 football team pages. Nor do I want to just delete them without an effort to get the original person (the maintainer) to try and update it. Is there a Template:Abandoned we could put on it? Of course, swapping that with someone saying they will maintain it would become troublesome as well. So how about this for a policy:
Individual team football pages are allowed as long as someone is willing to:

  • maintain it
  • provide more than basic schedule and results information
  • keep it up to date in a timely fashion (weekly, or within a few days of a game played)

They may, or may not, put the {{Maintained}} tag on the talk page and they are encouraged to join {{WikiProject College football}} but are not required to do so. Once 2 weeks have passed since relevant information needs to be updated (to include, but not limited to 2 weeks after a game played, or other major event(s)), the article shall be determined if someone else is willing to maintain the article or attempts to contact the major contribuiters (maintainers) to the article to encourage more input. If after 1 more week, no arrangement has been made to update and find a replacement maintainer (whether they used the {{Maintained}} tag or not), the article shall be {{AfD}}'ed. Ressurection from the same person(s) as before would require a committment to the {{WikiProject College football}} for several months before allowed, but newcomers would be encouraged to try with help from previous maintainers allowed and encouraged.
Did I forget anything? Add to it or modify it as needed. I don't own it. --Mecu 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I remain against any suggestion to use {{Maintained}}. I appreciate your making a proposal. Rather than try to reply myself, I'd like to step back and let some other people absorb the discussion we've been having and to chime in a bit. There's no reason we need to resolve this today. I would like to note that I've never even noticed {{Maintained}} existed priort to today. I see that it was created 13 December 2005. I checked "What links here" and I see that it is in use on just 518 pages - including 4 added just today concerning college football. That means it is currently in use on approximately 1 out of every 2,316 articles. Johntex\talk 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I made an attempt at what I think should be the format for the season schedule table on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team page. I don't think homecoming game should be marked, I think the non-conference * is too small and we need something bigger/better, but I can't think of any, championship games (and bowl games!) should not be listed since it's more projection than fact and should only be added when a team is confirmed to be playing in them (when they have locked up their conference, have been invited, etc). We should all use the Coaches poll/BCS for rankings, otherwise some people may use AP and there could be duplicate numbers showing. --Mecu 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...my comments. I think * is just fine for NC games. I have no problem removing CCGs from the schedule until they occur and will do so on the OU article. I agree with using Coaches poll until the BCS poll is released. The Coaches poll is calculated into who will play for the NC game and thus I believe now carries more weight than the AP poll despite the AP poll having more notability. I personally think the MM/DD/YYYY format should be used without links to narrow the table slightly and because the date links are unimportant. I'm still undecided on the location of the Result column.--NMajdan•talk 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's important to use the January 1 format because then it will format the date to the users preference. Using MM/DD/YYYY is fine for Americans, but causes confustion internationally and is less clear than just using the date format spelled out. I'm fine with not linking the years, and wouldn't want to link the date for any other reason other than the format issue. And I agree, the Result column is lost. --Mecu 01:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I came across a template the NFL uses at the top of its Season-by-Season records. {{Start NFL SBS}} is the template and it uses {{end box}} at the end of the table. You can see it here. We could use something similar to this at the top of our schedule. That way every schedule will be formatted the same. Look at these templates as well: {{Start game list}} and {{Sports game}}. We could make our own versions of those.--NMajdan•talk 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Roster

I've started adding a roster to 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team. I'd appreciate any comments on the format (which was stolen from the NFL folk). TheMile 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I don't think "True" needs to be used though, just the class unless they're RS. And I don't think you should link every player. There certainly shouldn't be an article on every player unless they are noteworthy. Perhaps we should have this in a table so that season-end we could easilly add stats of players in? --Mecu 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree about not linking every player; I just did it for consistency's sake. I think I'll reorder players by depth and only link the guys in the two-deep. TheMile 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I also like it. Along with Mecu though, I don't think you need to link even that deep. I'm not sure that the information on even most starters for many major football teams would deserve a page separate from the team page. For instance, if they had one great play in a season it would be good to have a note of it, but would not deserve a separate page. Z4ns4tsu 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tweaked the format some more, removing all the links with the intention of linking significant players from an eventual depth chart. I've also added a small icon to designate redshirts. I like the effect, but suspect it might not be appropriate. Thoughts? -TheMile 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of copying this one as well for the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team article. I shrunk the font size down to 90% as a personal preference. I like it the way it is. I have it ordered by number under position and only have wikilinks for existing articles.--NMajdan•talk 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled accross this template and I think it would be a good idea for us to have something of the sorts (omiting the flag, to start) for all rosters used. {{Football squad player}} --MECU≈talk 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I kinda prefer the one we've created on the 2006 OU page and Michigan page.--NMajdan•talk 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the layout on the 2006 Sooners page. While the {{Football squad player}} template looks ok for international football (soccer) with about 20 people on them, I don't think it really would work for 85-man squads of college football. We'd be wasting a lot of space that the three-column template makes a better use of. Z4ns4tsu 14:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Depth Chart

Now that coaches are starting to talk about their expected starters, I've put together a tabular depth chart. I imagine it could be worked into a template if it enters wider use, as the markup is rather lengthy. Any comments or criticisms? -TheMile 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally against depth charts mainly because of how dynamic they are. It creates the potential for people to create them and then never edit them as they change. A roster is more static as it only changes if somebody is injured or kicked off the team (stupid Bomar). I especially feel there is not a need for both a roster and depth chart, it should be one or the other.--NMajdan•talk 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
While depth charts are dynamic, I think they're more important than rosters, what with walk-ons and such cluttering up the latter. Secondly, the entire individual season page suffers from the potential for people to create and ignore them. -TheMile 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against depth chart(s). I don't think we need a complete roster of a team either, the top players at a position that are likely to play at that position (and only listed for their main position) should be done. Specifically, we don't need "Long Snapper", "Punt/Kick Returners", etc, position. I'm also not sure I like the red shirt image to signify the red shirt players. I think the 'RS ...' was perfectly fine. Is it going to matter in 5 years who was listed #2 or #1 on the depth chart at each position? No. But a list of the players that were really a part of the team would be. --MECU≈talk 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I do like having a complete roster. It is good to know because tomorrow's superstar could be today's peon. Roster's are fairly easy to create and simple to maintain afterwards. And, if you're talking about making a list of people who contribute, that list is already long in itself so why not put in the added effort and create an entire roster. I would think that 50% of a team significantly contribute throughout the season when you consider regular rotations (linemen rotate constantly so most of them do see action) and people who come in after injuries. Just my opinion, and the way I plan on doing the OU page(s).--NMajdan•talk 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So how (if at all) do you think we should recognize the more important players? A brief list or paragraph or something else? -TheMile 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, how I did it on the 2006 OU page, was I included a paragraph above the roster discussing some of the players.--NMajdan•talk 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
We also mentioned the most likely to be important players in the pre-season over-view. Players who are on watchlists for awards, main stars, etc. In my opinion, that's probably enough. The roster is important from an historical viewpoint, but only a few players each year can be expected to be truly notable. Z4ns4tsu 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
We could also, in the roster, make the non-major players in a sort of gray text. Something like:
 

Quarterbacks
*12 Quarterback 1 - Senior
*15 Quarterback 2 - Freshman
On a similar note, how does any team have depth charts out when fall practice just started? Coaches haven't been allowed to see practice since the spring and so I wouldn't think they would be final yet. I'd wait on doing a depth chart of any nature, whether in the table form as TheMile had it or in the color example I have above until more finalized depth charts are released closer to the start of the season.--NMajdan•talk 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In some cases it's a no brainer who's going to be number 1 (or number 2) at a position. If you have a 3-year starter senior returning and 3 other freshman for the job... but I also agree, depth charts are too fluid for usefulness in an encyclopedia. Would you want to have a template showing each depth chart for each week of the season? What do you then show at the end of the season? Are you just going to show it during the season? I do see the value in highlighting the starters (I like the way you did it with the gray), what do you do at the end of the season? Show the players that started the most? Highlight those who lettered at the position? --MECU≈talk 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Coach stub

Ok, {{collegefootball-coach-stub}} has been created. We need to populate it so its creation will be justified. I'm going through the other lists right now and recategorizing. Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdan•talk 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When we apply this stub, should we remove {{collegefootball-stub}} or just leave it and have both? --Mecu 12:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Remove it. The coach stub will place it in a sub-category of collegefootball. There is no reason to keep both as it is the more specific one.--NMajdan•talk 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Concern about ratings

I'm not sure our current rating system (borrowed from the Military History project) is the best system. You will find that even that project is considering some changes.[2] My concern is that the quality scale seems to be effectively limited to a choice between "B Class" and "Start Class". We don't have control over the listing of GA articles, so we can't really go higher than "B Class" in our assessment. Stubs are already marked as stubs, so evaluating an article as a stub is redundant. Perhaps we should introduce another tier or two that is under our judgement? Another option would be to focus more on getting a peer review system going. I'm not sure we learn much about how to improve an article by just saying it is "Start Class" or "B Class". I'd like to see more actionable commentary on how the article can be improved. Johntex\talk 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a better discussion to have over on the Assessment page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment. I agree that stub/start/B is generally quite limited and added another category when I was creating the page, but then I discovered that the WP1.0 project people have defined the levels and I could not easilly add a level. I think in general it's a fine system. A stub is obvious (athough I have been labeling some that have the stub tag but I would consider a start level) and a start level I've generally been saying if there's information and it needs to be filled out/competed in some respect (add a coach box, detailed info about college career, or just organized better) then a start level. B level if it appears that it's complete and with a peer review and minor edits/cleanups, it could be submitted for GA status. Adding or changing or creating or own rating system may not be worth it in the long run. And wouldn't really fit elsewhere within WP that I can see. Mecu 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think with only 13 people here in the project (so far), it may be better to have discussion here where the maximum number of people will see it. I don't know if everyone will have all the sub pages on the watch list. However, I did comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment about a particular assessment with which I disagree. I don't think we can make broad statements that mascots should always be "mid" importance, and that other school traditions are "low". A famous hand signal like Hook 'em Horns or the Gator Chomp is way better recognized across college football and more notable than the mascot of the "119th team". Johntex\talk 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I replied that popularity seems to be valued higher here at WP so I'm fine with your argument. I can see some traditions being High, but never Top, and others low or mid. I think what your original statement here is about is a peer review process, and not so much assessment. Would you propose building an entire rating system from scratch? I only did it that way because the to-do list said to 'copy' the Military history method, so I did. Mecu 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it said "Create system for rating articles similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment". ;-) Seriously though, to answer your question, I am proposing that we discuss that rating system and decide if we want to change it or not, and to prefereably do so before anyone puts any more work into using this system to rate articles. Johntex\talk 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does say similiar. But not to squibble over semantics... I've stopped doing anything with the rating stuff for now until we solve. So how would you create your rating system? What would it be like Military History and what would you do different? Mecu 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to take some time to study other systems some more. I was the one who originally proposed implemented a rating system similar to that of the Military History project, so it is not that I dislike their system - I'm just wondering if we can build upon it. One suggestion I have aleady made (above) is to add an extra category or two. Another suggestion is that we should have discussion around defining the categories, and choosing appropriate examples, rather than to have the categories defined by one or two people. We have started discussing the importance of traditions here today, so that is a good start. Johntex\talk 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to some other systems please? --Mecu 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure,
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has a rating system that includes tracking all rated articles in a table along with who reviewed them and what their comments are. While a little more work, an advantage here is that you end up with something tangible to work on to make the article better.
  2. Wikipedia:Version_0.5 uses a similar (same?) system as the Military History project - though note that they have not even begun using the Importance scale, they are focusing on the Quality scale first.
Johntex\talk 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(reset) Both of those use the exact same system, just in different ways. The way Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America uses the system is more of a peer review method, which I'm fine with using. I was going to object that we should do this after we initially rate everything, but it seems to be extra work, and if we're going to rate it and then go re-rate it, why not just rate it the final way first? So, the Assessment group should be a subset of the (college football) peer review group. Or, essentially the same group. So long as we initially define clear criteria to use when we classify, insofaras we should list what each player, coach, team, team-by-year, stadium, mascot, bowl, rivalry, trophy, tradition article should have in advance. --Mecu 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding to an old discussion, but is there any way that we can switch the A-class and GA-class. That is the way they do it in the Indigenous Peoples Assesment scale, and I think it will fit better. Bornagain4 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So you're wanting the next step above GA to be FA? That makes sense to me. For the most part, the articles should be 'good' before they are 'featured.'--NMajdan•talk 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of article importance rating

There is some discussion of the "article importance" above in regards to team pages. (I think general team pages can be "high", but pages for specific years should never be "high" unless the team won the NC.) Anyways, I just added a few coaches and players that are in the College Football Hall of Fame, but are not common names: e.g. Zora G. Clevenger and Charlie Bachman. According to the criteria here, hall of famers are of "high" importance. Yet, another article I just added, Pappy Waldorf, who is even more well-known than the other two, was rated as "low" originally and then raised to "medium". Frankly, I think any Hall of Famer is as notable as the fifth down game, so the rating criteria are correct as written. But they are apparently not being applied as written. So, should the criteria for high be changed to something like "recent hall of famers" or "notable hall of famers" to account for this? (And who decides who is notable?) Kgwo1972 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with you that the only team-year page that should be rated as High is the national champion's page, but even then it should be down-graded to Medium after a few years. As for Hall of Famers, I'm not inclined to list any of them as High unless they've really done something amazing. Hell, I wouldn't even put Bud Wilkinson as a High and he holds a record that has stood for over 60 years (thanks, Texas for preserving yet another OU tradition). Maybe I'm just comming at this from a different angle than the rest of the members of this project, but I think that the weight of our articles should be Medium becasue if it deserves an article on WikiPedia, the subject is already notable to some degree. So, High should be for very important things (recent Heisman winners, recent National Champions, major bowl games, big historical events, etc), Medium for almost everything else, Low for subjects with very little information, and Top for only two or three things (current season schedule, "Big 5" bowl games for the current year, any new BCS controversy/changes/bullsh*t that comes up). Z4ns4tsu 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think current and recent years should be high, especially for larger caliber (BCS playing or Top-25 finishing) teams. National Championship Team by year pages should be Top priority. All others should be Mid or Low based on how well they are. A page on the 2005 0-12 New Mexico team should be Low, if existing at all. As far as consistency in rating articles, we're just beginning. I literally put the assessment page together yesterday so we're all learning here and mistakes will happen. I believe the key item to take in assement, for now and that should be the driving principle is right on the assesment page: The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football. Thus, historical items (and important to college football) may be ranked Low, while more recent items (like Joel Klatt) would be ranked higher, even though in 20 years, Klatt may cease to be a page and the hall of famer will still be there. This seems to contradict WP:Recentism though. The guidelines were a stab at how it should be done and are a starting point and we're now discussing them. Saying the guidelines say hall of famers should be High isn't a valid argument. I further think Z4ns4tsu's system is okay, except that everything should start Low. Important events/people in college history should be medium, current important events should be High, and Top should be true, fundamental core college football (what a beginner would need to know or most heavily searched for items). --Mecu 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, so the criteria are a work in progress; I didn't fully appreciate that. I agree with Z4ns4tsu that the default for all articles should be low. And I can see how more recent events might be rated higher. But Joel Klatt is a bad example of a recent person being rated "high" for me – he is an undrafted quarterback who won no significant awards. I can't see how Klatt should be rated any higher than "low" even though he was recently in college. At best he works his way up to "medium," but I can't even see the argument for that. A person that works his way to "high" through by way of recency would be, say, Bill Snyder, who is not an all-time great up there with Paterno, Blaik, or Bear Bryant (all of whom should stay at "high"), but who was an active coach up until last season. Anyways, as far as hall of famers, I think the mere fact they are hall of famers makes them at least a "medium." Even the old ones, whose names are no longer recognizable. I think it should be the rare article that gets to high, somewhat akin to the standard for "Top" under the current draft. High should be for the Rose Bowl Game and hall of famers who a consensus acknowledge play a lasting role in college football lore. Kgwo1972 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Nevermind the stricken-out part; I see Klatt is rated at mid-level. Kgwo1972 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Would you put Vince Young and Mack Brown at high? Johntex\talk 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's nice that you both agree with me, so for a change of pace I'm going to disagree...well, not really, but I did read over the criteria again and I've modified my opinion a little bit. Mainly, I paid attention to the lines that Mecu quoted from the assessment page. I really think that it mainly supports my orriginal view, but I'd like to add to it. The chances of a random person googling (did you see that that's officially a verb now?) for Joe Pa is a lot higher than for Bud Wilkinson, so that automatically puts his article at a higher priority for completeness and accuracy. However, it is also pretty likely that someone will search for statistics on the "new, red-hot freshman quarterback from Blah-blah U." That doesn't mean that we need to have up-to-the-minute stats on that QB, though. In fact, until he makes himself known, he prolly shouldn't even have an ariticle at all. So we have to stick with at least a two-factor process for deciding a rating. Higher ratings should go to articles that are both important and popular. Striking the ballance is where the difficulty comes in and the toes get stepped on. We've done a good job not getting mad at each other yet, and I think we'll keep it up, but remember to avoid personal attacks (or worse yet, Alma mater attacks) and fully explain your thoughts. There are only a handfull of us on this project right now, and we're going to need all of us to make it work. Ok, enough being sappy. Z4ns4tsu 21:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Right now, yes. I think both deserve a rating of High until at least the mid-point of this season. Z4ns4tsu 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think any coach that is current at a 'major' school should be High. Any player that wins a final 'major' (D1A) award should be High. Items like Vince Young and Mack Brown could even be Top for short periods, but how much do we want to constantly re-rate and argue over ratings? A rating should exist and be able to exist for a year. No fresman should have a page (because it would be about their HS career and in-progress stats) except for very rare circumstances of which I could only think that maybe a player that is in the race for the Heisman would qualify (or they have impressive lineage, maybe, probably not). Players like Joel Klatt are important to the history of Colorado, being a 3-year starter at QB for the school is noteable and fills the history for the complete story. I've seen some templates that list quarterbacks like coaches, so it could be important in that matter as well. Anyone want to take a stab at trying to clearly define the criteria of timeliness and popularity, perhaps in a table? --Mecu 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think freshmen should absolutely be able to have a page under the right conditions. For example, I created Colt McCoy about the presumed replacement for VY at UT. I think a starting freshman QB at any major football program would also merit an article. Perhaps other skilled positions as well. Johntex\talk 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any current college player should have a page unless they were at least a first team NCAA All-American or won an NCAA trophy for being the best at their position in the nation. If we lower our standards past that we could potentially be adding tens of thousands of player bios, all of which will be stubs that nobody will ever be able to expand upon. If they make it to the NFL, great, make a page for them...but for college players there are just too many, most of which will never go on to the NFL and hence don't merit a page being made for them. I've used this same reasoning over at AFD for men's basketball and the consensus was to DELETE the article, and that was an article on a starter for a 1-A school. VegaDark 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it a lowering of standards to have more articles. It is a raising of our standards in terms of completeness. There is more than enough citable information to write a non-stub article on a starting QB for a major team. I also don't think we can be a good resource for college football unless important current players are getting coverage. Johntex\talk 02:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
To expand on that, I don't think making it to the NFL is a deciding factor on whether a player is notable as a college player. Dusty Mangum is notable to the game of college football even though did not make the pros. The same is true of Major Applewhite. If we wait for them to make it in the NFL, we may as well give up on player articles and leave them to the NFL project. Johntex\talk 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a line needs to be drawn ... but maybe willingness to write the article would be a good line. If someone goes and creates stubs for 85 scholarship players at Virginia Tech and never does anything with them, that's bad. On the other hand, a well-written article on Jesse Allen, our starting fullback, wouldn't be a bad thing. I would apply your standard for stubs - there's no sense in making a stub unless they are an all-something or at least a well-known player (Marcus Vick, for example). As for basketball, I think that's a little different because there are fewer players. If you are a starter from a major basketball team, you are probably worthy of an article. That doesn't mean Morgan State, but anyone who starts in the ACC or BE, for example, could probably have an article ... but that's another wikiproject. BigDT 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think making it to the NFL (or AFL, NFL Europe, etc.) should be the standard for 99% of player articles myself. Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on people based on the probability of their future notability. How many starting college QB's today will be considered notable (i.e., worthy of an article) in 10 years? Probably about 15%. Simply playing a college sport doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia, even if you are a starter. Certainly there are a few exceptions, but we can deal with those as they come along. I don't think this project's goal should be to create a bunch of articles on players we will have to delete in 4 years because they never made it to the NFL and are not notable. VegaDark 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
But there are players who never make it to the NFL who are unquestionably notable. Corey Moore was all-everything at Tech on our 1999 team, but was too small to be in the NFL ... I don't think he was even drafted. Marcus Vick and Bryan Randall may not survive any length of time in the NFL, but they are both obviously notable for their time at Tech (albeit for different reasons). Eric Crouch won the Heisman and retired before what would have been his rookie season. He is obviously notable. Chris Rix, if he saw any NFL time at all, wasn't there long - he was a sideline reporter for Fox at the Cotton Bowl this year. There are plenty of college players who don't make it to the pros or who have very abbreviated careers, but are notable for their college time. BigDT 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree- That was factored in to the 1% margin for exceptions. If you think about the sheer number of people that play college football, 1% is probably about accurate. VegaDark 03:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the distinction may be about whether it should be a goal to create articles on these types of players vs whether it is acceptable to do so. I am not proposing that we go out and attempt to comprehensively write articles on freshman starters as a project goal. I am only saying that if someone wants to write a good article on a freshman starter, that this project should support them, and that we should not consider them ripe for deletion. Johntex\talk 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I do think we have some common ground on the subject of stubs. The point of a stub is that it is OK if it is likely to be expanded. Making a stub for every player on a roster would not be a good idea because they are likely to remain stubs. Any well written, sourced and verifiable article should be encouraged. Their notability does not necessarily end with their college career. Alumni and scholars may consider those starters interesting to read about for all eternity. At worst, if they are useful for a few years and then no one cares anymore, we can AfD them at a later date. Johntex\talk 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On the original topic - ratings - we really need to decide something. I just looked at Category:High-importance college football articles and there are some articles that are not high priority. For example, Chris Simms shouldn't even be here - he's a starter in the pros ... I think that means he isn't our's any more. Then, there's Civil War (college football game) and Civil War (college rivalry) (the latter shouldn't be here either). I don't know that anyone outside of Oregon has really cared about that rivalry in five years. (It's kind like VT-UVA - if we're both good, it's important, but the rivalry factor doesn't matter to anyone outside of Virginia.) Chicago Tribune Silver Football is the name of the Big 11's MVP trophy ... umm ... okay. Dave Meggett's article barely mentions his college career and as he played at two different 1AA schools, I doubt he is high priority for college football. Earle "Greasy" Neale's article doesn't mention his college career.

I think that high priority articles need to be those fundamental to college football itself (college football, BCS, if we ever get overtime split out from the generic overtime article, bowl games, etc), people who are legends and whose primary notability is college football (Bobby Bowden, JoePa), national title teams and seasons, and the current season itself. Just my opinion ... BigDT 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The NFL is irrelevant to our project, except if they are noteable within the NFL, then their college section should have information and their status is higher. Otherwise, having NFL stats or never playing is irrelevant. There's no such thing as "no longer ours". Everyone in the pros has a college history (well, the probability is there). This is about college football. Player articles should be written in the past, not the present or future. Team articles and season articles are fine for the present, because there's little chance to to be useless. A Freshman QB could end up a dud and the article then not important. It could certainly wait until the end of the season to be written. Do we absolutely need to cover what the current content is up to the minute? --Mecu 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm against putting any wait limit on starting articles. If a starting freshman is getting press in his first year, people will be wanting to read about him. We have an opportunity to serve those people as a neutral, well written source. So what if he vanishes after one year? We can always AfD articles. I do agree that it should not be a goal of our project to systematically create such articles, and that they should not be ranked high in importance. Johntex\talk 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
TEMP Article importance grading scheme FOR DISCUSSION
Defining methodolgy: Ratings attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football.
Items can switch categories over time. There is no clear cut criteria and subjective measurements must be made. If you believe an item is mis-categorized, please ask to have it re-evaluated.
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a core topic for college football, or is generally notable to people other than students of college football. Most likely to be looked at by people searching. Broad topic that covers more than a specific school, player, region, conference or single event. Current information. Must be directly about college football. Few items should be ranked, and new items should never be ranked this level without discussion (except for yearly season pages).
High Popular and important subject. Current high-profile players, coaches and schools. Important (to college football) is someone who wins a major award in college football. Important should be to college football, NFL or other notariety can qualify. Popular is receiving current media coverage (other than from the school involved), and more than a one-time event. A lineman that is drafted may get media coverage for a week, but generally isn't popular otherwise — coverage should be more consistant. Items may move down to Low class once popularity fades over time, but rarely move to Mid class as an item should never lose importance.
  • NFL coaches with college history
  • High-profile NFL players
  • Major award college players and coaches
  • Current major winning teams (win conference, BCS, etc) (Merely in the top-25 is not justification)
  • Bowl Games (though their popularity is brief, it's cyclic and therefore justifiable)
Mid Popular, but not important subjects. A person or school may be popular but not important. Subject is notable or significant to a specific team, school, conference, or region. Items receiving media coverage, but not generally important to college football. Most team pages for the current year, some players and coaches that someone may be searching for. Items may move up to High class if they become important, or down to Low class over time as popularity fades and become more historical coverage.
  • High profile players with no history/awards
  • Coaches without major accomplishments. Lower level/Smaller school players
  • A fan who wants to create a page on their team, favorite current player, etc
  • Traditions, Mascots
  • Top-25 teams for the current year (that are not National Champion contenders)
Low Important, but not popular. Historical coverage for completeness of the history of college football. Important should be for completeness of covering the subject. Someone doing research or wanting deep information about a subject (list of all quarterbacks for a school). Hall-of-fame (college or NFL) players and coaches and items covered for historical reasons. Items from High and Mid class may be moved down here over time. Items are rarely moved out of this class. Low-profile football team pages.


  • While organization is great, I believe we are now getting to the point where we are spending more time discussing organization than actually working on articles. We are either over organizing or over complicating. --NMajdan•talk 14:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. No one is saying stop working on articles, we're just trying to sort out how to attack certain aspects of the project. The articles will wait for us. --Mecu 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Mecu, it is far better to think through a system before we do work that may have to be redone later. Nothing in this organizational process keeps us from writing or imporoving articles. Johntex\talk 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I also agree with getting the organization done now rather than later. We have about a month and half until college football really ramps up in popularity, so if we hammer this out by next week, we can spend the rest of the time banging out quality articles. Now, about the criteria: overall, pretty good. I think more emphasis should be put on the timeliness of articles affecting their ranking (i.e. not every season page for a school is Mid-Class but only the one for this season. I made changes to the above table and highlighted them with italics.
      • Oops, forgot to sign it. Z4ns4tsu 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think your table is too weighted to popular rather than important. Also, it stresses the NFL too much. Also, I think that if Low is the default category, we should list it first to make this clear. Here is my pass at a system that stresses keeping most articles in Low. Kgwo1972 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
TEMP
Label Criteria Examples
Low Articles are measured by their importance in college football and their popularity, (which means receiving current media coverage so more likely to be accessed online today ). “Low” is the default category, and all articles must have a reason for being rated higher than Low. At least half of all college football articles will be included in this category; merely having a Wikipedia article indicates that the subject holds some significance. Included in this category will be all articles written merely for completeness of coverage of a subject (e.g., players or coaches that won no major awards, or lists of quarterbacks for a school). Articles regarding most programs, or teams fielded by a school in a specific prior season will be in this category (unless the team won a national championship that year). Likewise, subjects that are notable or significant only to a specific team, school, conference, or region. Items from High and Mid class may be moved down here over time, to reflect the change in popularity.
Mid Articles that are more popular or more important for college football broadly. About a quarter of all articles will be in this category. Included among the articles in this category will be most Hall-of-Famers (college or NFL), most team pages for the current year, and most players and coaches that won major awards (or coaches that won national championships). Current coaches are regarded as more “popular” than former coaches, and may be included here even if they have not won a major award. Articles for current players only rise to this category if the player has already won a major award (or, perhaps, is a late-season favorite for the Heisman Trophy). Articles for anticipated top-25 teams for the current year (that are not National Champion contenders) may be included in this category.
High Popular and important subjects. Approximately one-eighth of articles will be in this category. More renowned Hall-of-Famers, who have more “popularity” are included in this category. Articles for programs that have won numerous (and fairly recent) national championships may be included in this category, as well as articles for individual teams that won national championships within the last five years. Players and coaches that won major awards and are important for other reasons (such as setting the record for most victories by a coach). Players with notable accomplishments in the NFL are more likely to be “popular” so accomplishment in the NFL can be considered.
  • NFL coaches with college history
  • High-profile current NFL players
  • Current National Championship contenders
Top Subject is a core topic for college football, or is generally notable to people other than students of college football (e.g., legends of the game). Most likely to be looked at by people searching today. Generally broad topics that cover more than a specific school, player, region, conference or single event. Current information. Few items should be included in this category, and new items should never be ranked this level without discussion (except for the current season page).
  • Marcus Vick of higher importance than Reggie Bush? I think even VT alumni would concede that's wrong. VegaDark 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was thinking Michael Vick. I have changed it. Kgwo1972 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't make sense that Top is at the bottom and Low is at the top. Plus, I'd say Reggie Bush is popular and important (important is a given since he won the Heisman) but popular since there is media about him and he was a 1st round draft pick and now in the NFL. Please re-read this segment as to why popular is ALSO a consideration and may outweight importance!: Ratings attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football. --Mecu 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • In addition, OJ Simpson and Joe Montana as core subjet matter? No way. They are specific persons and cannot meet the criteria. A beginner into college football should learn about these guys before they learn about the BCS? or the current season? They are definately important, but not popular anymore. --Mecu 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I like the second system better, but Joe Montana and O.J.Simpson cannot be top. Maybe we can have a numbered system, 1 being low, 2 being mid ... That would put 1 at the top and 4 at the bottom so we don't have top at the bottom. Just a thought. Bornagain4 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone's primary notability is from pro football (like Joe Montana), I can't imagine them being high priority for the COLLEGE football wikiproject. If they made a quick exit from the pros (Eric Crouch) or even if they have been in the pros for a long time, but everyone knows them for their college time (Herschel Walker, Ty Detmer), I would put them up high, but really, the top ranking ought to be for those things essential to the project. Like some others above, I agree that this isn't really something worth wasting a lot of time on. I'd be perfectly content to see us either (a) get rid of it or (b) instead of ranking things by priority, sort them by topic BigDT 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Has this discussion concluded? Are the importance and quality descriptions on the Assessment page accurate and should we follow that?--NMajdan•talk 13:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A new way of looking at things

I am finding the discussion above a little difficult to follow. I suggest a new way of looking at things. Instead of trying to come up with text to describe each level, let's figure it out by examples. Let's list some categories of pages, then we can each place a recommendation as to where you think that item should rank.
Here is how I think this should work:

  • If you agree with my assesement of that category of article - just add your name right after mine.
  • If you disagree (Eg. I said "High" and you think it is "Mid"), simply add a new line after mine with your proposed ranking and your name. The next person then agrees with one of us and adds their name to the appropriate line, or they add a third view

Here we go:

Top - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
High - Johntex, Kgwo1972
High or top (2006 NCAA Division I-A football season = top, most anything else = high) BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan
  • The main football article (if it exists) of the top 25 football programs of all time (by winning percentage - Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas...)
High - Johntex, I would change "of all time" to "in recent years" BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan (I would change "in recent years" to "modern era-post WWII")
Mid - Kgwo1972
  • The main football article (if it exists) of all other Division I programs
Mid - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan
Low - Kgwo1972
  • An article on any specific team season (Ex 2004 USC Trojans, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team if they won or shared (AP, Coaches or BCS only) a national title since 1995.
High - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, (Prior to 1995 should be Mid) Mecu, Z4ns4tsu
Mid - Kgwo1972, NMajdan
  • An article on the specific teams about to play in the BCS bowls (once known) or the ones that just played in the most recent BCS bowls through the off-season.
High - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
  • An article on any other specific team's single season (all 2006 team seasons would be in this group until the BCS bids are announced)
Low - Johntex, BigDT, Z4ns4tsu
Mid or Low - (Depends on how likely the team is to do well, Texas-Mid, Colorado-Low) Bornagain4, ('do well' Nationally? In their conference? A winning season?) Mecu, (Mid if likely to do well nationally) Kgwo1972, NMajdan
  • An article on a specific person in the college football hall of fame or who is a recipient of a major college award (Heisman + ...?) or was the subject of a media frenzy.
Mid - Johntex
High for any current Heisman finalist, current coach of the year, or historic person considered fundamental to an understanding of college football (e.g., Bear Bryant), otherwise Mid - BigDT, Bornagain4, (Household names could apply to this as well) Mecu, Kgwo1972 (except as noted below for HOFers), NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
High for all HOFers - Kgwo1972 (a wiser and larger group than us has already decided the HOFers are extremely important to college football)
  • An article on any other specific player, coach or person
Low - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, (I divided this category further, see below) Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
  • An article on a football stadium or other facility
Low - Johntex, BigDT, Mecu, Kgwo1972, Z4ns4tsu
Mid or Low depending on how well known it is - Bornagain4, NMajdan
  • An article on a specific rivaly or rivalry trophy or a specific historic game
Low unless incredibly well known, then Mid - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, (What classifies as 'incredibly well known'? I guess it would be up to the rater) Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
Mid - Johntex, BigDT, NMajdan
Mid or High depending on how well known or how significant - Bornagain4, Kgwo1972, Z4ns4tsu
High - Mecu
High - Johntex
Mid - BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
Low - Kgwo1972
  • Any other team tradition, mascot, saying, hand-signal, etc. that has been in existence at least 10 years but is not generally well known.
Mid - Johntex
Low - BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
  • Any tradition less than 10 years old
Low - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
  • A current coach of a BCS/Top25 team (eg Mack Brown).
High - Mecu, Bornagain4, Kgwo1972 (BCS only; all others Mid), NMajdan
  • A player or other coach that is current (college or NFL) but not an award winner (at either level)/Top25 (e.g., Dan Hawkins, Mark Mangino).
Low - Kgwo1972, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
Mid - Mecu, Bornagain4
  • All other historical players and coaches covered for reference (Joel Klatt).
Low - Mecu, Bornagain4, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
  • A major conference (ACC, Big Ten).
Top - Bornagain4, NMajdan
High - Mecu, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
  • A mid-major conference (MAC, C-USA).
High - Bornagain4, NMajdan
Mid - Mecu, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
  • A defunct conference (Big 8).
Mid - Bornagain4
Low - , NMajdan, Mecu, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
  • A DI-AA conference.
Mid - Bornagain4
Low - (All non DI-A items should be Low, except national champion and related items) Mecu, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
  • Add a new category if I left anything out.
  • I want to emphasize that nothing here means we have to create an article on every team's season, or player or coach or bowl game. This only means that if the article does exist and is well written enough to keep, that we rate it according to the system we end up agreeing to. Johntex\talk 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hopefully a few of these we will all pretty much agree on right away, the others we can take into seperate sections to discuss once a few people have had a chance to add their votes to the list. Johntex\talk 05:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Should we set a deadline of like Friday, July 14 for the initial votes to be talled before we bless this and then implement the system? Of course we can always revise and change it. I'd also like to say that these should be guidelines. A reviewer may change an item that should be Mid to High or Low if they can justify it. --Mecu 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds good to me. On Friday, we can tabulate the votes and if need to discuss one or two that got no consensus then we can do that. I also agree they should be guidelines, with a reviewer needing to explain/justify if they deviate from the guideline. Johntex\talk 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to lobby against using Top for the "major conference (ACC, Big Ten)" items. I believe Top should be items that would require daily review from several members and/or constant edits. The conference articles will be fairly static and (should) contain more information than just about football, which shouldn't dominate the article either. Thus, it wouldn't really require the daily attention. I further don't think it should be required for someone new to college football learning to read about conferences in their first strides. Knowing about the conference system, sure, but reading about each (major) conference? As a side note, I think we can begin discussing items where there is no clear consenses (should we define consenses as 75% or more?). --Mecu 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think frequency of updating is related to importance. College football is our most important article and once we get it to the point where we are happy with it, it could go for days without anyone editting it, assuming no vandalism. I think the "Importance" scale is about "how important is it to the casual reader looking to learn about this sport". If you want to view that in the negative, it would be "how bad do we look if this particular article is poorly written". The major conferences are very important to the game and I would expect a reader to hit one of them fairly early in reading about college football. Therefore, I think they are pretty important. I agree with you that any articles with 75% consensus or more we can assume are settled. Johntex\talk 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that Johntex has a very good point. I completely agree with his definition of the importance scale. Bornagain4 22:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the items that were consensis and tranfereed them to the Assessment page (but left them here also for reference). See Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment#Importance_scale. For the remaining items, there wasn't enough consensis (75%, some are close at 66%), so folks either need to change their vote, discussion needs to occur, or more people need to vote. In the meanwhile, it is safe to rate articles at the lowest level that is under consideration for that items. For example, if it's between Mid/High, then you can rate it Mid if you want, and if it turns out High, then we can go change it, or just not rate it and wait, or rate it what is currently in the lead. I've bolded the items left. --MECU≈talk 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've compiled the results of this list here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Classification determinations.--NMajdan•talk 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Get Started?

Since things seem to have stalled, I'd like to propose that the items that were accepted (and now on the assessment page) be generally applied. Other items that fit in some of the other areas should be rated probably as above. But, in all cases, the rating is up to the view of the assessor. If the view is much different than from the general ideas agreed upon above (ie, if I wanted to rate Dan Hawkins as "Top") then justification must be given. Disagreements should be discussed specifically on that individual article's talk page. In all cases, no one who has ties to the article should be rating (ie, I shouldn't rate a Colorado item) unless it is fairly clear or I don't seem to be going against the general consensus. If I do and someone else applies a different standard, their views should outweight mine, as long as there is some justification given. I know that's clear as mud, but does everyone generally agree? --MECU≈talk 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in general. Let's see if I can clarify a bit, though. The rating of articles should follow the guidlines set out by the WikiProject:College football general consensus. When an article does not fall under a category discussed in those guidlines, the original assessment shall stand unless a convincing reason is given for a change to that assessment. These reasons should be included in the edit summary if short and on the article's discussion page if longer (with a reference to look at the discussion page in the edit summary). Sound good? z4ns4tsu\talk 15:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Perhaps adding something that if the change fits the guidelines, then discussion doesn't need to occur since it still fits the guidelines. MECU≈talk 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Fixed some errors, made more clear. I'm not sure what you mean with your suggestion, Mecu, so can you show me? z4ns4tsu\talk 17:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Have these determinations been translated on the Assessment page?--NMajdan•talk 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For consensus, I'd say that if there is an alternative viewpoint held by just one person with at least 4 people voting, that's consensus. As for my example. Let's say I rate article BLEH "High" and it fits the guideline. Someone else comes along and see's that the rating no longer applies to the origional guideline, so they change it to "Mid" because it now fits that guideline. No discussion needed or entry on talk page. "Update Rating" would be all that's needed in the edit summary to justify - as long as they did things right. Let's say coach of Texas get fired and ends up at Troy. No longer needs to be rated High, but there could be argument for it since he's still a promenent coach, so they could hash it out. I'm all for whatever these get rated, that it's probably correct the first time (assuming someone has the project best intentions in mind, and not just promoting their team) so changing shouldn't happen too much anyways. I converted the items from long ago over to the assessment page, so they should be correct unless votes since then have added items that I didn't copy that weren't in consensus. So, someone should doublecheck thing and edit it to make it make more sense that I seem to be able to do. I guess it's now time to start the peer review department and building the tables that are empty at the bottom of the assessment page. If you volunteer to peer review a page, please list it, the ratings and your justifications on that page. This could give us a good starting point of how much work we really need to do. Clear as mud still I hope. MECU≈talk 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with what you said. 4-1, so majority rules. If Mack Brown or Pete Carroll went to Troy, eventually they would need to be downgraded. I say eventually because I'm sure it would be a big story for awhile if that happened, so leaving them at the higher importance level may be justified for a time period. Now, if a coach gets a promotion (for example, if Steve Kragthorpe goes from Tulsa to Texas A&M) then they deserve to be immediately raised in importance. But, we really need to update our tables so when they click quality scale or importance scale on the banner, they are taken to the table with the correct information on how to rate with college football-related exampled. As far as the tables at the peer review section, I don't know if that is needed. We have the bot-generated log that lists everything. There is an empty Comments field in that table. If we can update that with the peer review requests, I think that would be best. My concern, though, is if we add something to Comments, will it get deleted next time the bot runs? I may add some text to an article I re-rated and see what happens.--NMajdan•talk 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yah, I'm not sure how the bot will handle it, so we'll see with your test. I agree with your comments as well. Just that it doesn't really matter if we downgrade the article if it's already a B-level or higher article. The point is to try and establish what articles should be moved from stub>start>B (and higher) before working on others. Like, a Top level article that's a sub B level should be immediate for us. A Top level B article could probably wait while we move the High levels up to B class. But it's all subjective in what folks want to work on too. I'm not too hungup on the "importance" or priority levels anymore. I think the class ratings are more useful. I'd almost be willing to say get rid of the importance levels and just use the class levels to see where what articles need work on (aside from stub levels). But whichever. I like the idea of linking the ratings, I'll look into it unless someone beats me to it. MECU≈talk 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, the importance ratings are already in the template, so I say leave them. And they're used in the population of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's tables and logs. But I do understand what you're saying. As far as the linking, they are already linked in the banner. I just want to make sure that the links they go to are accurate based on our previous discussions. Right not, those tables have examples such as Medal of Honor, agriculture, arithmetic, Big Bertha (drum), etc. We need them to reflect CFB-related articles.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The quality scale is just a template, so we can't modify it. If you want to subst: it and then modify the examples, I don't think that'd be a problem, but since we don't have any (do we?) FA articles or A-class (I wouldn't put the 2005 rankings since it's not an article) it may not be worth it. Perhaps just add a section below to list some CFB examples? MECU≈talk 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it is? Hmm. Did not know that. Also, we disagree about the rankings page. While it is not an article, it is still an information-providing page on Wikipedia. Whether it be an article, list, or image, they should be rated. Now this page isn't an article and thus would not be ranked. But since it is not an article, then there's no reason to include it as an example for an FA article. I'll take a look at some of this stuff tomorrow.--NMajdan•talk 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I was taking "article" too literally. If it's in the article namespace, then it's an article. Tagging this page or anything under the project would then get the NA. I stand corrected. MECU≈talk 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been asking around about the Comment field on the worklist and I'm getting some answers. For some reason, my test page wasn't picked up by the bot but I don't know if the bot just missed it or if I did it wrong. The Comment feature is not documented but somebody said today they would work on some documentation on it as he implements it on another WikiProject. Go here for the discussion.--NMajdan•talk 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I finally got it finished. I'm going to create another section referring to this change. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Comments on worklist.--NMajdan•talk 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard Formats

I'd like to suggest that each type of article contain a standard format of information that should be included to be considered a complete article, to be used during the peer review process. Missing imformation would mean the article could not qualify for a FA (or GA?) status. --Mecu 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Player
    • {{NFL player}} filled out with Image (if applicable)
    • {{Persondata}} filled out
    • Birth and death dates, birth and death city.
    • School(s) played for with compilation of stats in a table (need to standardize tables)
    • Awards received, mention also if they were a finalist for the awards, include All-American too, HOF info
    • High School career (should be fairly short section)
    • NFL Information (if applicable)
  • Coach (if they were a player, player information also)
    • {{succession box}} complete with all head coaching positions in College/NFL listed
    • {{College coach infobox}} filled out with image
    • {{Persondata}} filled out
    • Table of year-by-year coaching info/records with summary at bottom
  • School football (eg, Colorado Buffaloes football)
    • Table of year-by-year results of full schedule
    • Table of all coaches by years with summary of record
    • Section on Major player/coaches from the school
    • Section on any National Championships year(s)
    • Table of Bowl records
    • Table of year-by-year summary result
    • Retired numbers
  • Yearly School page (eg 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team)
    • Pre-season comments/awards
    • Schedule (using table and format discussed elsewhere)
    • Roster (at least 2-deep, complete preferred)
    • Week-by-week discussion of games (see 2005 Texas Longhorn football team)
    • Full stats table (minimum stat leaders)
    • Post-season comments/awards

Discussion

  • You're wanting the full historical record of every year's win/loss record? That is quite the daunting task.--NMajdan•talk 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this is a very daunting list. These are all good things to look for, but I don't think these are minimums - these are more like the Gold Standard List. As Nmajdan says, a year-by-year set of results is quite a table for most teams, and I doubt any of our team articles currently go into much detail on that team's national championship seasons. Also, not all players will go to the NFL, so the {{NFL player}} is not appropriate for all players. Perhaps we need to make our own variant of that template? Johntex\talk 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is a gold standard list, do we want to include yearly rosters, starter lists, or two-deeps? The latter two are fluid and subjective, so maybe not, but I wanted to put it out there. TheMile 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw, for teams with yearly pages (i.e. 2005 Texas Longhorn football team), I wouldn't be against including a two-deep roster on there.--NMajdan•talk 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not shoot for the moon? I agree, some of this is idealized, but should be have an ideal and work towards it? Why set the bar low? I would think that this list would be the criteria of an article that could reach FA status. If an article is missing a few items, then it could still be GA status, but it would help reviewers with what to look for, what's missing, aside from "expand content". Plus, anyone creating an article would have a standard of what to work on/towards. --Mecu 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
My major concern is over use of the phrase "information that should be included at a minimum". This is far more than just the "minimum". If these are the "shoot for the moon" requirements, then they should be labeled as such. My secondary concern is that this seems to place an emphasis on "filling in the blanks" of statistics and the like. Johntex\talk 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree to an extent. Having that many tables and records is a tedious task that will require a great deal of time, time I would like to see spent one writing better parenthetical articles.--NMajdan•talk 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it should be desired for full information though? I agree that and article on (for example) Michigan that has everything except a detailed year-by-year schedule result would probably be a GA article, but can't be considered complete without it. I agree it is also slightly stats heavy, but I could not and can not think of a way to list criteria about how to list a requirement that says how to write a parenthetical items. By no means was this presented to be the de-facto list, please add, change modify it. My ideal is that someone going through the rankings could have this beside them while they evaluate an article. They would look at the article and "check off" the items as they see them. So, if someone looks at a player article, they see exactally what it needs to have instead of every reviewer looking at the same article and (probably) coming up with different results on the completeness and suggestions of what needs to be done. --Mecu 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with it if it is described appropriately, but I don't want reviewers to check their brains at the door. How about something like "In addition to looking for well written prose, accuracy, and adherence to Wikipedia policies and project-wide style guides, the reviewer is asked also consider as a factor in their evaluation whether the article appropriately includes the article the following suggested information:..." Johntex\talk 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created a potential template in my userspace for the Yearly Team pages. Let me know what you think and I will move it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format.--NMajdan•talk 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the schedule table should be listed there, not referenced out. Also, the stats should be specificed, not just a list of reccommended items. Other than that it's fine. And you know you're allowed more than one userspace item so everything doesn't have to go on your Test userspace page? --MECU≈talk 15:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But I'll forget about them and they'll get lost. Maybe I should use Test as more of a TOC for my other pages. I'll work on actually adding empty tables to the template for the schedule.--NMajdan•talk 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out [3]. It'll show you all your userspace items. --MECU≈talk 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A few other comments. I'm not sure <Mascot> is the right term, since for teams like Stanford, Cardinal isn't the mascot per se. Perhaps <Nicknames>? Also, maybe we should standardize the roster display with a template somehow? I don't think a template for each school per {{2006 Oklahoma Sooners football roster}} is useful, but a template that allows you to fillin the names for each school on that page. So there'd be only 1 template for all rosters. --MECU≈talk 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Very useful. I switched Mascot to Nickname, that makes sense. Regarding the Roster. Ok, it probably shouldn't be a template, but thats how I saw it first and I went with it. That probably should just be moved to the main article text. Opinions? As for an actual template. I'm against that idea because it it too complicated. Its easier to take an existing roster and just edit out the information. Can you image a template with enough attributes for approx 80 players, their number, position, and class? That is way too much data. Also, I added some stats to the page. I may have went a little overboard but better to start with too much and trim than with too little. I've thought about placing the team statistics into two columns. Any suggestions?--NMajdan•talk 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the roster template, I don't see a problem with it. The NFL does all of its rosters this way (see Category:National Football League roster templates).--NMajdan•talk 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the NFL is doing it that way.... actually, I think you're right -- it would be overtly complex. We should generate a category for that as well then. The two-columns for stats -- the opponents is just a summary, right? Also, you need a kicker/punter stats box. --MECU≈talk 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I created a 2 column layout for the team stats and added the punter/kicker table. Don't know how I looked over the latter. I also moved the page to a subpage of the project and provided a link to it in the Structure section. The link is above a few posts.--NMajdan•talk 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking good. What about FG kicker stats? Perhaps move this discussion to that talk page? And summary of stats? Add it to the Project Navbox? --MECU≈talk 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are already fields for Field Goals & Attempts and PATs and Attempts in the Team Stats part. Really think its worth creating a separate table just for those? I think knowing how many were attempted and how many were made will suffice. Besides, very few teams have more than one field goal kicker. If you want a summary of stats, than that can go after the Statistics header and before the Team header. I'll add something there.--NMajdan•talk 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FG made/missed and XP made/missed from <20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50+. If you want to make the argument that FG detailed stats aren't important, I'll apply that then to the full kickoff and punter stats as well. --MECU≈talk 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Allay general copyright concerns

Obviously, the CFB Data Warehouse as well as athletic dept websites, media guides (very, very useful for individual school info) are the Bibles for non-copyrightable information. Actually, let me clarify: how they arrange the data on their page is copyrighted (but you would have to program a lot into Wikipedia to make it look alike), however the data (schools, score, location) is not copyrightable. This is analygous to the landmark copyright cases about copyrights and phonebooks (you can short-hand reference it as Feist). Anyhoo...good to know my degree was worth something. But back to media guides for a second: most are intended to disseminate PR info so, at worst, you can probably fair-use most of the content as a press kit. --Bobak 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this general info or are you referring to any pages in particular? Although it is good to know.--NMajdan•talk 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
General info. At first I was going to make a direct response to a concern about how difficult it can be to gather a full w/l record (that you can just grab it from a site like CFB Data Warehouse), but then I realized I could easily expand the comment and give everyone a head's up going into their articles. On the project page it says to be careful not to copy --but that might confuse people who would hestitate to grab w/l records or roster data off of different online sources. I want people to be able to work without too much concern on copyright, and I know Wikipedians sometimes are extra-extra nervous about that stuff. --Bobak 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
To make sure, before I go off and do stuff that isn't useful, I could take a media guide, crop an image from it, and upload it and it'd be okay? Further, how much do you have to change the format before it's different? if I reverse two columns? Omit a column? Change colors, fonts, etc? --Mecu 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
An image is a very different thing. The legal case Bobak points to is saying that information is not copyrightable. An image is not information, it is a creative work that is subject to copyright. As to format, I am not sure there is a standard answer that would work in every single case. My reading of Feist is that the formatting of the informaiton was not dealt with specifically. I presume though, that Feist pretty much copied the exact format of Rural's data (all phone books pretty much follow the same format: alphabetical by last name, the first name, followed by address and phone number - what could you change around other than type face, etc.?) If that is the case, then reversing columns may not be necesary at all. However I seem to recall a different US court case that held that you can't just copy someone's top 100 list, like the NYT best-seller list, because intellectual creativity has gone into making the list. Any comment on that Bobak? Johntex\talk 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like Bobak to please directly address Images from a Media Kit then. --Mecu 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, a quick note on fair use of press kit info: the concept of fair use includes the concept of how much material is used. We can't just take an entire press kit and copy its prose over to Wikipedia. Even smaller sections need to be appropritely cited to avoid issues of plagarism. Again, when creative work has gone into writing something, that would not be a case of simply copying information, which is what the Feist case covers. - Johntex\talk 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Fair use explains our policy on fair use quite well. It includes pointers to the relevant templates for tagging publicity photos. Johntex\talk 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I opened up a can of questions. Let me see: (1) Media Guide Images: Johntex brought up the key point of publicity photo tags for fair use. I concur with him that you should read the fair use page on Wikipedia with the thought in mind that media guides are intended as publicity books for the press. However, don't overuse the images --the use of a fair use image should be directly related to the article (reference to a key player in an article, an article about a key player, an article about a specific game, an article about a location prominently featured: there's a bit of art to balancing what's in the photo with what can be used under fair use). (2) How much of a Media kit: indeed, use a media guide to supply facts, not supply copy (text). Like all Wikipedia articles you should put things into your own words unless it's an important quote or you're assembling a data table. If you get data that might otherwise be only available in the media guide (or would require citation anyway on Wikipedia), then cite the Media Guide (which is a notable cite). (3) Lists: Indeed, the creativity that goes into a creating a list is what is copyrightable. Thus, if you copy a list of things that were ordered through the creativity of an individual (i.e.: Chuck's top 100 movies), then you have a violation. However, if you're simply taking the data set that's been compiled from public information (football records, phone numbers, box office grosses) then you can get away with arranging them in the same, logical order, just not copying any distinguishing additions (CFB uses those hideous colors, for example: don't use them). I think everyone is on the right track, and I hope that above clarifies things a bit. --Bobak 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm testing the waters. Image:Eddie_Crowder.JPG used only at Eddie Crowder. (if anyone can help on the image page with the fair use description, please do, I always seem to get yelled at no matter what I do there.) --Mecu 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed Mecu's above link. Making an image into a link requires a : in front of it. Not a "tl". I have no idea why they work differently, but they do. Johntex\talk 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I tweaked the fair use explanation a little bit. Johntex\talk 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I got busted. Not on the test image used above, but on images I was using on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team page tagged as {{Promotional}}. See here for some discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Yearly_team_pages_format#Fair_use_images. --MECU≈talk 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Navigation template

I made a quick navigation template to use. It will be especially useful as we progress out of organization mode and into edit mode. I modeled it after {{WPNOVELS}} and {{WPMILHIST}}. It is stored in my userspace as of now until people can look it over and suggest any comments. I will eventually create it here: {{WPCFB}}.--NMajdan•talk 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have a bit of a patience problem. The template {{WPCFB}} has been created.--NMajdan•talk 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rose Bowl Good Article

I nominated Rose Bowl Game for good article status. Bornagain4 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs more work. I'll save the meat of my comments for the discussion in that talk page. --Bobak 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Master School Table

Would a master school table be useful? Something like the following (with all NCAA D1A teams? or do it for each level each team?): I think it would pool together information that's scattered around and show what exactally is missing from certain schools. --Mecu 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how this could be a bad idea.--NMajdan•talk 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean for it to exist here, I was just giving an example. Since it will get quite large, I think it should be on a subpage of the Project. Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/MasterTeamTable maybe? Go ahead and add teams if you feel like it here, we can always move it later. Please add teams alphabetically. Also, if a page doesn't exist, go ahead and create the page like it should be if it did exist. For example, User:Nmajdan added OU, but didn't create the football page since it doesn't exist, but go ahead and add the item like it does exist. For Year Pages, just show them if they exist, or should exist if they were a national champion that year.
I have no problem against creating a sub page. If you do, be sure to add it and its talk page to the {{WPCFB}} template so we can keep track of the sub pages.--NMajdan•talk 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There's also this page List of NCAA Division I-A Football Programs. --Mecu 18:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(removed sample table so it doesn't get used/updated/modifed by accident --Mecu 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ) Above table is a sample, please add teams to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/MasterTeamTable

Portal

It having been 7 days since Mecu proposed a portal, I have created one. Please have at it! Johntex\talk 07:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

College football Portal

Team bowl game history articles

As of right now there are only 2 team bowl game history articles, and I think we should agree on a naming convention for them before more are made. As of right now we have List of University of Oregon football bowl games and List of Oregon State University football bowl games, but I think it may be better if we used the nicknames instead of the official school name and also if we added history, i.e. List of Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history. Or perhaps Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history and leave off the list at the beginning? Thoughts? VegaDark 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't feel those articles are entirely necessary, if I had to pick one of your suggestions, I would say the latter. I'd say leave off "list" to leave room for the optional narrative and use the school's nickname. Oregan State Beavers football bowl game history. Although that sounds long winded. Nevertheless, I'm sure some people will create these articles so having a naming convention established beforehand is wise.--NMajdan•talk 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree isn't not very needed. Such information should be contained on a Oregon State Beavers football page as a section on there. But, if I had to pick a naming convention, I'd pick Oregon State Beavers bowl game history (are there bowl games in other sports? Is the "football" really needed? If so, Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history). --Mecu 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
A page on the bowl games of a team could get pretty long if one tried hard enough. I think a page seperated from the football page could be justified. Not sure if there are bowl games in other sports, but it might be helpful to include it in the name for the people that know little to nothing about football that happen to come accross that article. VegaDark 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, I don't think it is necessary to say "football bowl games." If there is any possibility of confusion about whether "bowl game" refers to football, the article itself can make it clear. Also, whether "list" is included in the title depends on whether it is a list or an article. If a list, then it should be List of Oregon State Beavers bowl games. If an article, then I'm OK with Oregon State Beavers bowl game history. Kgwo1972 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As of right now the two existing articles are pretty much lists. However, I do think both could certainly be expanded upon to be articles. So I have to agree that Oregon State Beavers bowl game history is probably the best name so far, I'll wait for a few more responses before I move the existing two though. VegaDark 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not just link to CFDW (or whatever it is) and have a section on each article about bowl history? Rkevins82 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A separate article for bowl games .really. seems extraneous ... I'd suggest adding the table to the main athletics or football article ... BigDT 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Need opinion

I need some opinions for list layout here: talk. Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdan•talk 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New idea

I have an idea for a slightly different assessment scale for our WikiProject. I got the idea from WikiProject Indigenous people. Here she be.

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good.
A
{{A-Class}}		 Meets most of the requirements for a Good Article, has some editing errors, missing sources, or missing information.
B
{{B-Class}}		 Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly useful picture or graphic
  • multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
Needed
{{Needed-Class}}		 The article does not exist and needs to be created.

Bornagain4 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an issue I've thought about with regard to our tagging of NCAA conference articles (i.e., Big East Conference). I think we have to remember that the conference pages are not SOLELY about college football and that the conference pages represent ALL sports. I just don't feel as though we should overdo the football section of the ACC, for example, when basketball is equally, if not more, prominent in that conference. Just my two cents. Like the new scale, BTW! Masonpatriot 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this much different than what's listed on the Assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment#Quality_scale? --MECU≈talk 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, this scale only grades the quality of the article. The main discussion above is about how to rank articles in their importance. Both of these are used in combination to determine a priority of items to work on. In theory, Top-ranked importance should be worked on before High, Mid and Low (and so on). Further, items that are stubs within Top should be worked on to bring them up to B level, and then once all items are B levels, then work on gettings them to GA and FA levels. Of course, this is theory and we all have our preference of articles/schools/interests. So things won't always get worked on in that order and it's probably not going to happen to get everything to B level before working towards GA/FA. But the idea is there, and those searching for articles to work on may use this tool, but it also helps evaluate where we are as a project. If we get to the point that there are 5 stubs, we can see that we've really progressed at a project. --MECU≈talk 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Over on the MathBot page which is the bot that tallies up a project's ratings, it was suggested to change "importance" to "priority". Even if it doesn't happen, I think it's a good reflection on what that category means. While I and others argue over an article's importance to college football, which is important in assessing its priority, it's not what the scale is really about. --MECU≈talk 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

UK College

Sorry to ask but I presume this College Football Project only applies to Colleges in the USA and taking part in NCAA competition. I know that in the UK we have a College league as well are we to be fitted in or ignored? Thanks, BCAFL 1:25pm GMT

I created most of the BCAFL pages and I've already tagged them as part of the College Football project, albeit at Low importance. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any BCAFL questions. Masonpatriot 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Year Pages Template

Do we really want year pages templates like the LSU one seen on LSU Tigers football? I am very against this since I don't think it's a good use of resources, really needless information, a succession box could be used instead, and the pages links could be just linked like 2006 LSU Tigers football team with a Main Article or something of the sort in the same section. --MECU≈talk 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I for one don’t think it is necessary to have a template linking to every year, simply for the reason that it puts pressure to create a team page for every single season, which will just create a lot of stubs with no real substance to them KSEA 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both above comments. A succession box would definitely suffice. I feel the same way about templates such as {{LonghornsQuarterback}}.--NMajdan•talk 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by "succession box" - could you point to an example, please? Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Rich Brooks In the middle of the page, the box that has "preceeded by" and "suceeded by" are called succession boxes (at least, that's what I call them) because if you look at the code, it's {{succession box}} along with {{start box}} and {{end box}}
Let me see if I understand what you are aiming for. You are saying you would rather see just the previous and future persons to hold the position rather than all persons who have held that position? Is that right? Johntex\talk 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it, it would be more efficient on space to use the succession boxes. I believe that I have seen a way to have a wikilink to an article that could then be a list of all the coaches or whatever if that information is worthy of an article. The main arguement is that succession boxes exist already and are widely used in biographical aricles where succession occurs (Presidents of the United States, Emperors of Rome, etc) and it is better to use what exists effectively than to create a special use template for each school's football history, coaching history, etc. especially if that school has over 100 years of tradition (and most of the schools that would have yearly season pages do).Z4ns4tsu 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think the (head) coaches templates are the only exception to this rule that should be allowed. Since coaches typically coach at several schools, it's a quick way to glance at the surroundings. Also since coaches tend to stay in position a lot longer than players. The year pages is a no brainer I think. --MECU≈talk 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:LSUTigersFootball

Template:LSUTigersFootball has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:LonghornsFootball

Template:LonghornsFootball has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:LonghornsQuarterback

Template:LonghornsQuarterback has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Current roster with flags

Is it typical for articles about college football teams to list the current roster with the flags of the state from which the players hail? See, for example Notre Dame football. If this is a standard format, where is the appropriate place to discuss it? Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a complete waste of resources to have the state flags. The roster on 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team is closer to a "standard" that we have here. I don't think an article such as Notre Dame football should even have a roster listed on it. That belonds on the year pages. Highlight players should be the ones listed on the main article (such as Heisman winners, retired numbers, etc). --MECU≈talk 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yawn. The flags on the Notre Dame page are for a reason. They are the nation's only truly national team and that fact is abundantly clear with the diversity of the flags. Furthermore, it is not as though the 15x25 pixel flag take up a lot of space. On the otherhand, I have no problem with splitting the current and last years roster into their own article. -- KelleyCook 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the size on the screen, it's the resources Wikipedia uses to grab the image and send it over the internet. Folks below are quite correct, every team (except maybe Texas) is fairly national and have players from all over. I doubt there is much encyclopedic value with that. If someone wanted to know the national makeup of the team, they are a deep fan and would look on the official website for such information. --MECU≈talk 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"They are the nation's only truly national team"" I am an ND alum and fan, but that is a huge POV and incorrect statement. In today's collegiate football environment, many many teams have players from across the country. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It just looks really cluttered with all the flags. They are unnecessary. Every college has athletes from many states.--NMajdan•talk 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree the flags are unnecessary and detract from the page. Johntex\talk 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the flags. --MECU≈talk 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Player and Coaches Lists

I've stumbled accross some lists of items I think are useless. Such information could be contained on the school's football article, if important enough. List of Penn State Football Players for example, but also List of Penn State Football All-Americans and List of Nebraska Cornhuskers football coaches. And these are the only ones that I can find at the moment. The only argument I can see for these, is the prevent the football article from becoming too large (like the Colorado one is now). Do we want these? Should there be a standard format for each? Should these be listed with {{WikiProject College football}} under NA, or should these be classified? Should they allow current roster information? Who decided these are key players for 2006? --MECU≈talk 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Also this template {{SEC football coaches}}. --MECU≈talk 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think lists can be useful. As you say, there is a risk of some football pages becoming bloated. We should handle these case by case on the articles and lists in question. Johntex\talk 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Video Games in WP:CFB

Should items like NCAA Football 07, NCAA Football series, NCAA Football 06, and NCAA Football series soundtracks (and so forth) be a part of the WP CFB? I'm mostly convinced they shouldn't be, as it's more a video game than about college football. They certainly shouldn't be rated Mid-importance. --MECU≈talk 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

While the games themselves do not have a lot to do with the reality of college football, they do have, typically, the same audience and a lot of accurate information about teams, rivalries, stadiums, conferences, etc. If there is a WP:Video Games, I'd say let them manage the articles, but it would also be a good idea for us to have some input on them since people searcing WP for college football will likely see the articles on the games come up as well. Z4ns4tsu 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think items about college football (novels, movies, video games, paintings, whatever) do belong in the category. I think most of them should be low priority. Johntex\talk 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Template: CFBlink

I have created {{CFBlink}}. Please read the instructions, specifically on the talk page. Let me know of any improvements, comments, suggestions, critisisms you have. Only Colorado and Colorado State are currently populated. I want to see if this is useful (I'd see it especially useful on items like the Poll pages) before I spend the time to fully populate the items. --MECU≈talk 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:POPUP

I'd like to reccommend WP:POPUP to everyone out there. Someone just let me know about it, so I'm letting everyone else know about it. It's quite easy to install as well. --MECU≈talk 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Already have it. Great tool.--NMajdan•talk 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yearly Team Performances

I understand that there are a lot of things that are somewhat notable in a season but I think we should start limiting the 200X University football. I actually made one for GT's upcoming season but in retrospect I see it as too much. Maybe we could consolidate them into the actual football team pages. What do y'all think? - Excaliburhorn 17:35, 21 July 2006

The point is that it's not so much this year, but then next year you add that into a team page, and the year after that, and it starts to bloat the team page too much. Not every article has to be a 10,000 word thesis on the subject. --MECU≈talk 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is to just have notable instances throughout all time for those teams and just have a "preview" for the upcoming season. I just feel that every season for every team doesn't deserve its own page. - Excaliburhorn 01:10, 22 July 2006

USC year pages

I hope those are finished. They all contain information that appears to have been just copy/pasted from another website. The 2003 USC Trojans football team article merely states "Won Orange Bowl." These either need to be updated and formatted as agreed upon or deleted.--NMajdan•talk 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I commented on the 2004 USC Trojans football team article.--NMajdan•talk 02:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I left a message on the user's talk page User talk:Troyboysc about this. Creating year pages that are stubs like that aren't useful. There's certainly a need for the 2004 USC page, but unless the others will be expanded and creating short, useless content like that isn't needed. --MECU≈talk 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The 2003 and 2004 pages were both edited with completely copyrighted material from the teams prior media guides. I deleted the content and placed a copyright violation template on the page.--NMajdan•talk 23:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another image for logos

I found this image Image:Football helmet gerald g 01.svg today on openclipart.org (their images are PD). Would someone who has software to do svg be willing to recolor it to something less flashy than green? I think this image would be nice to try out for the stub images. The football is wonderful for the UBXes and wikiproject tags ... but it looks a little small on the stub and I thought it would be nice to try this one.

 This college football-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Any thoughts? This would be something nice to distinguish us from WP:NFL ... but it needs a less obtrusive color ... BigDT 18:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the current image is fine. --MECU≈talk 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

REQ: Please review before requesting Featured status.

All, we are nearing completion of 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings. Upon completion, we will request this be a Featured List. Please review the page and make sure there are no grammatical mistakes or factual mistakes. Coding all these tables has been tedious and I would hate it if I messed up by putting the wrong color in a cell or something minor like that. Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdan•talk 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NMajdan, that is a tremendous amount of work!!! You deserve a huge pat on the back for this, along with Mecu and anyone else who helped you. Do you have any kind of tool to make this easier or is this as labor intensive as I think it is?
I guess the BCS does not recompute their rankings after the bowls, is that right? They think they have gotten it right if they get one game scheduled.
I'll read through it in detail, but my first impression is that it is fantastic. Johntex\talk 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Its as labor intensive as you think it is. I'm sure Mecu would agree. And no, the BCS and Harris do not compute results after the bowl games.--NMajdan•talk 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That's too bad - I was hoping you had some sort of magical Excel import device or something. Geeze that's a lot of work. Thanks again for subjecting yourselves to the pain. As awesome as it is, I've managed to come up with some suggestions for you to consider: [4] But I think it is deserving even if you don't change a thing. Johntex\talk 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is labor intesive, but if we do it week by week, like this season, it's not so bad. Just having to do the whole season at once makes the eyes go blurry. Yah, once the BCS selects the teams for the championship game, that's it. --MECU≈talk 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, this article has been promoted to Featured status. Thanks to everyone for your help. Please feel free to help update the 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings article as we will be putting this up for featured status after the season concludes.--NMajdan•talk 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiQuote

Hello, I started an article on Wikiquote about college football. The article is currently being considered for deletion. If you have additioanl quotes that should be added, please make them to the article. If you have a wikiquote login and wish to participate in the deletion discussion, it is here. Note that deletion discussions are not votes, so please be prepared to discuss and not simply vote an opinion. Johntex\talk 02:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, I have a quote over on the Portal or Portal Talk page that you can add to Wikiquote.--NMajdan•talk 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - I copied over all 3 quotes from our portal. I'm new to contributing to Wikiquote, so I don't know exactly what we/they need to see in order to keep the article. Johntex\talk 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There's one more that I submitted on the Portal talk page.--NMajdan•talk 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Review before submit for GA Status

I'd like to submit Bowl Championship Series for GA status. It's quite well written and has some great content. The only area I think it may be weak in is the Controversies area. Also, maybe the {{future}} or {{Future sport}} should be added to the Future section? Please review and provide feedback on the whole article. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 01:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on the loose

Hey, I think other people have already caught and reverted his edits, but keep an eye out for edits from 64.81.90.226 on your pages. He has been hitting a lot of school athletics pages in the Big 12. I know Johntex already caught a few and fixed them. Just a "heads-up." Z4ns4tsu 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He's blocked (well, the IP is blocked) for the next week. I foresee vandalism could be a major problem with overzealous fans. --MECU≈talk 20:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Haha, yep. Getting to be that time of the season. Hope everybody has their POPUP tool ready to go.--NMajdan•talk 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least he's been taken care of, <style='sarcasm: on-full'> though for all I care, you could ban the whole state of Nebraska...f#$%ing hillbillies</style>. Z4ns4tsu 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I enjoyed blocking him for a week. My "block button" never seems to run out of bullets, so if the whole state of Nebraska (or Alabama or California or Texas) comes to spew POV about their favorite team, I'll just enjoy blocking them all.  :-) Johntex\talk 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice to have an admin on the team. --MECU≈talk 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
As long as they don't mess with UMD articles I'm just fine. Mess with Duke all you want, just leave MD alone -PhattyFatt 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)