Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jun2007

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

Be aware of logos with no fair use rationale

I've noticed some fair use logos getting tagged with no FU rationale. We need to be aware of this and add appropriate rationale to prevent them from being deleted. One that was recently tagged is Image:CFBHOFlogo.jpg. I will add rationale to it as soon as I can unless somebody beats me to it (I probably won't get to it until Monday or so).↔NMajdan•talk 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the FU rationale for Image:CFBHOFlogo.jpg. Вasil | talk 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Keith Jackson

Although this project has rated the Keith Jackson article as a top importance, it has been blanked by an editor(not me!) do to the fact that it is not sourced. XinJeisan 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not completely against deleting unsourced info from BLP articles but that seemed a little overboard. I mean, he even deleted all the categories (even the Living people category)! I say you could restore the categories (birth year, living people, etc).↔NMajdan•talk 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It was definitely far too extreme of an action by that editor, who I have a suspiciion is not a fan of Keith Jackson. He tagged the article unsourced and then 6 weeks later blanks it; many article are tagged for far longer than that without any type of action like that. He should have marked specific items with {{fact}} that he had an issue with. I think the bulk of the article should be restored with some puffery removed or more granularly tagged for cites.
Alternately, many Wikiprojects have a weekly article chosen for improvement. Perhaps WP:CFB should do so as well, at least in the off-season (we all know how busy it gets in fall). If KJ is truly a Top Importance subject for this project, then his article would be a good choice with which to kick off a weekly article improvement drive. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've downrated to mid. No way is he Top. He's a fairly central person to CFB which is why I did mid. I don't recognize the user who rated him as Top, so it might have been a fan rating. MECU≈talk 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team under GA review

Any help would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rutgers Football Article

I believe that the Rutgers Scarlet Knights should have a separate article for their football team seeing as how they hav become a nationally ranked team and are becoming a national powerhouse. Sekuloguy 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree. I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone creating an article for a Division I-A football team. Or Division I-FBS, whatever its called nowadays. Go ahead and create it! Seancp 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
However, for a little good natured ribbing, I don't think one good year makes a national powerhouse! Heh... Seancp 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well i'll start it but don't expect it to be any good i'm relatively new here, but im sure i could get some help along the way. Sekuloguy 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. No question about it. You didn't even need to ask! MECU≈talk 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I just started it really quick it's going to need a lot of help. Sekuloguy 23:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not going so hot. I have to go somewhere until tomorrow so I won't be able to do anything till then, but i just wanted to start it so it's there.

Charles Melick

Hi there, Charles Melick has been tagged as insufficiently asserting the importance of the subject since Sepetember 2006. I have replaced the Importance tag with a notability tag, which get's it off the radar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability for the immediate future.

In doing so, I came to notice all the coaches mentioned on this template. Most of them I have also flagged as insufficiently establishing notability.

When creating stubs, could every effort be made to at the time a stub is created, clearly meet notability criteria as mentioned somewhere. This would usually be done through providing references for everything which is included in the article: that they were a coach, the years they coached at a given team, and what type of result they achieved.Garrie 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By default, a head coach of a Division I football team is notable. Anyone listed in any of the 119 (I think) coach templates we have as a project are therefore notable. Some more so than others, but all are still worthy of an article. MECU≈talk 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Claiming National Championships

There needs to be a better way to explain the national championship situation. On the right hand of the USC Trojans Football page there is a stat claiming 7 national championships for the school. The school, as well as much of the country sees USC as a team with 11 national championships. Can someone fix the template to allow both ap national championships and over all national championships otherwise there is going to be a constant battle back and forth even though "both sides" are right. The school should be given credit for the full 11, otherwise a large truth is missing from the page. (Padsquad19 07:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

There already has been a battle. Look at the archive of this talk page and at Talk:NCAA Division I-A national football championship for more info.↔NMajdan•talk 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:BCSChamps

I put this on the talk page of this template, but since it probably isn't watched much I added it here to see if I could get anyone's opinion. This template is for National Championships in the BCS Era and links to the BCS national championship game. I think that should mean BCS National Champions and as such the 2003 split shouldn't be called a split and USC shouldn't be mentioned on it. USC won a national championship that year, but it wasn't the BCS and unless it is supposed to list all national champions since the BCS began (as if the BCS started a new era in football) it doesn't need to be mentioned on the template. Related to this, has anyone thought of creating a template that lists AP National Champs? It could be used on the main team pages of those who have won one, or on the yearly pages if they are created. Any thoughts on both of these? Phydend 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I also didn't think 2003 USC belonged on that template, but I didn't bring it up because I'm an LSU fan and I was afraid of the backlash that LSU fans experience whenever they bring up USC and the 2003 split title. Instead of a separate template, how about we rename the BCSChamps template to something like NCAAFootballChamps and list the teams and the major selectors. I don't know if that would even be a good idea though because the national championship issue has always been the source of much debate here on Wikipedia. I don't really know what a good solution would be. Hell, maybe we should just leave it alone. I don't know. I'll wait and see how the discussion develops before I give more input. Seancp 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look at the template, it makes total sense as "BCS Era National Champions" rather than "BCS National Champions". I don't think there's any debate that a new era began with the introduction of the BCS system, despite the fact that it botched 2003 and semi-botched a few others. --Bobak 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind...I'll comment some more. Right now we have articles on 23 national championship teams. See: Category:NCAA Football National Champions. I think a template that replaces the BCSChamps template with an NCAAFootballChamps template would be good because it would provide links to all currently written national championship team articles and it would also encourage other to start new articles on other, older national championship teams. As we all know, Wikipedia is biased towards current events. But hell, I want to learn about some of the older national championship teams. Maybe we could limit it to Poll Era national champs and only include AP and Coaches champions in it. Anyone else think this is a good idea? Seancp 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a decent (and ambitious) idea... The only concern would be how to handle various teams claiming pre-AP/Coaches/UPI championships. --Bobak 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As always, the College Football Data Warehouse has a good source for info in their national championship section. --Bobak 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely ambitious, but I wouldn't expect that creating a template would mean we'd have articles on all teams. It would take years before that became a reality. But with a template listing all teams with links, perhaps some Minnesota fan would be perusing Wikipedia, come across the template and say, "Hey, I'll create articles for the NC's Minnesota won all those years ago!" I'd suggest if this idea ever came to fruition that we start it with the first AP poll (I think it was 1936) and then add in the coaches poll (I think that start around 1950) and leave it to those two polls. But I think more discussion is necessary before I do anything. Seancp 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That idea is much better in my opinion. I just thought it seemed pretty confusing since there is no article about the BCS era (although I do agree it is definitely a new era in college football). I was going to suggest that an AP championship template be created and then just change this template to say BCS champs instead, but another template is definitely preferable with the information on the college football data warehouse used as a basis. Phydend 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for "National Champions in the BCS Era", and then we can create others for the other eras as well. I don't think "BCS Champs" is a good idea because of the split title. Then we'd have to have "AP champs in the BCS Era" and so on, which would be too redundant. MECU≈talk 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Well there is already a Bowl Alliance era championship template so maybe that would be better. There still is a problem with shared titles in each era, but that might be able to be dealt with somehow. Phydend 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

XXXXX football under Coach XXXXX

I asked a question a while ago and got some answers ("Questions on how to handle coach pages" from the May archive for this talk page) about how I might handle making pages for team coaches from a long time ago. Specifically, I was asking about a season of Gopher football where we had a different coach for each of the four games we played that season. I asked because I want to create pages for all Gopher football coaches, but in this case, I don't have much at all for information on these four. Well, I looked back at the March archive and saw the section "Notability of per-year team entries" and it made me rethink my strategy. It was talking about creating pages such as "Minnesota Golden Gopher football under Lou Holtz" and then having a page with a quick summary of each individual season that the team played under that coach. My thought was that instead of creating an individual page for all 15 men who coached the team prior to 1900 I could create a "Minnesota Golden Gopher football before 1900" page which would have a section for each coach and a quick rundown of the individual seasons. My question then is whether that would fit in well with the direction we're trying to take.Gopherguy 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be good. If any section then gets too big it can then be broken out. You could even go by an "era" of the team, something like "Minn Gopher football early era" or something of the sorts, so you don't have to cut-off at 1900 if it's not convenient. Or maybe "Birth of Minn Gopher football" which has the first 20-25 years or so until something more exciting happens. MECU≈talk 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd definitely want to avoid picking an arbitrary cut-off date - it just happens that after having 15 coaches in our first 19 seasons that Henry L. Williams took the team over in 1900 and coached for 22 years, so 1900 is actually an important date for us. I think I'll start writing the article and depending on how long it gets either keep it a single page or break it up into a couple of pages.Gopherguy 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be a good approach. Auburn has a similar issue with a couple of early seasons with two different coaches and a couple of single season coaches as well. Even though AU currently has separate articles for those early years, they could probably be consolidated into a single article. Probably many schools have that sort of early history in their programs and should take the same approach you propose. AUTiger » talk 23:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

College Baseball

I don't want to spam, so if this is considered spam then I apologize and please delete this. Anyway, I'm a member of the college football wikiproject, and I'm also a fan of college sports all around. One of my favorites is baseball. I just started a college baseball wikiproject and I'd like to see if anyone would like to join us. We're just starting right now and we could use all the help we could get. I modeled the project after this project because it seems to run so well. You can find us at: Wikipedia:WikiProject College baseball. I'd also like to be considering a sister project...please let me know if that would be ok. Thanks again, and sorry if this is inappropriate. Seancp 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rose Bowl content dispute

Over at Talk:Rose Bowl Game there's a dispute over inclusion of a statement that Arizona is the only Big10 or Pac10 school to never have played in the Rose. Thankfully, the dispute moved to the talk page because it had been a slow revert war for a while; however, some more unbiased (i.e. non UA or ASU) voices might help the discussion. Feel free to weigh in if interested. Thanks, AUTiger » talk 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CFB Yearly templates vs. CFB Coaching templates

Hi again - I come with another question. The CFB Coaching templates have been deprecated in favor of the CFB Yearly templates. Should I therefore convert any of them that I find to the CFB Yearly format? Normally, I'd think it would be obvious, but since some information is lost by doing that (bowl opponent in particular) I thought I'd see if there's a general opinion before I make a lot of changes which someone else will just change back.Gopherguy 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I say yes. The bowl opponent information can either be added to that template system (why it wasn't I dunno, maybe to keep the size down?) or into the text. Orphaning the template is a good idea and once done, remove it to prevent usage. MECU≈talk 15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - I'm going ahead with that then. I just converted the template on the Lou Holtz page and will keep my eyes open for other templates that need to be converted.Gopherguy 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Florida-Florida State Rivalry

Trying to get the Florida-Florida State rivalry page going. Any older Gators or Seminoles would definetly be appreciated to add to the history of the rivalry. In addition, anyone who has any memorable photos or games, please add.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaxonGator (talk • contribs) 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC).