Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents

Shortcut: WT:CFB

	To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject College football:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Take photos at games, spring practices, other events! Tag Talk pages with {{WikiProject College football}} Rate articles. See Category:Unassessed college football articles or College football articles by quality. Tag stubs with {{Collegefootball-stub}} or {{Collegefootball-coach-stub}} Create organizational structure for categories Add {{collegebowl}} to all bowl articles (current and defunct). See the template's talk page for the complete list. Convert tables to the more preferred "wikitable" class. See Help:Table#Style classes. Help peer review any articles currently up in the WikiProject's peer review department. Add infoboxes to all college football related biography articles. Eliminate red links at MasterTeamTable or Hall of Fame coaches, Players A-K or Players (L-Z) Expand a stub Maintain College football Portal Aid in the selection of Selected Articles and Pictures at the nomination page. Add top-level information to Current sports events as it occurs. #1 ranking team games, other notable events. Recruit new members by searching Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:College_football and Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:College_football_stubs and seeing if anyone not involved with the project has made an edit of one of our designated pages. (See list: Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football#Participants). Look at their talk page, and if they don't have lots of negative things (complaints about edits, vandalism, etc), edit and add {{subst:CFBwelcome}} to the page. Finish creating all userboxes for rest of NCAA teams. See NCAA Userboxes Do NOT use logos in the userboxes, they will get removed quickly.

College football WikiProject
Information Project page talk College football Portal talk Participants talk 2006 NCAA FBS Season talk 2006-07 Bowl Games talk 2006 Rankings talk Project category talk Master Team Table talk Team images talk Year Page Format talk Departments Assessment talk   •Worklist  •Log Collaboration of the Month talk Peer review talk Notability (proposed) talk Tools Project banner talk Persondata talk WP:CFB Templates talk {{subst:CFBwelcome-project}} talk Photos on Commons Userboxes Project Userbox talk NCAA Teams talk
edit · changes

Archives
1 2 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Mar 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Apr2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents 1 Changes to Coach templates 1.1 Changes made 1.2 Assistant coaches category? 2 Reference for games in schedule 3 AFD of List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football 4 The Wikipedia College Football project needs a policy about Fanboy sites 5 Linking to team pages that might not exist 6 Assist WPP:BIO 7 Stadiums and attendance 8 Yearly page formats 9 Help Name a new page 10 Feedback requested on scoring summary templates 11 Knute Rockne on WP:AID 12 Assessment statistics 13 2007 College Football Hall of Fame ballot 14 Need opinion on a couple templates 15 Adding more Bowl Information to Yearly History Template 16 What is this user doing?

[edit] Changes to Coach templates

I am proposing some changes to the coach templates that exist for every school. So, before I go off and do what may be unpopular, I thought I should ask first. You can see an example of the changes with Template:BuffaloesCoach and how it is different on pages like Willis Keinholz. First, the change would add the vde links to the template header and show/hide capability (don't ask me why there are 2 show/hides, I think it may be a bug). Also, reducing the width of the templates to 90% of the screen width to make it more inline with other templates that may be used on the page. 90% is a fairly standard sizing. Lastly, I propose putting the Category for each school "football coach" into this template. This means we could remove all the categories from the bottom of pages where this template is used. However, it would require the use of DEFAULTSORT: (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-02/Technology report) on these pages, because it would be impossible to include the name in the category for which this defaultsort fixes. The changes to the templates are fairly minor and would take maybe a few minutes for each so they could all be changed in 1 day. However, adding the defaultsort to each coach page and removing the duplicated templates would be a lengthy process. There is no problem I know of from the duplicated category listing. It hasn't caused a problem with the Colorado category yet. If you do know that this causes a problem, please say so. Otherwise, does anyone have a problem with these changes? In whole or in part? --MECU≈talk 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support, especially for the use of DEFAULTSORT - for the number of categories most of these coaches find themselves being added to, not having to worry about whether or not we're putting them in correctly (LastName, FirstName) is a definite advantage. Using Firefoxz I only see one of the show/hide links. I'm not really clear on what advantage there is in adding those links, since the template is so small, but it's becoming more and more standard, apparently, to use {{Dynamic navigation box}}, and the added v/d/e links will help when creating new coach articles (off-topic: I wish there was some sort of Javascript tool that would add v/d/e functionality to all templates in an article via right-click or something). Just let us know when to start making these changes! -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Do you know if it's possible to change the color of the v/d/e and show/hide links in addition to the title of the navbox? For example, for {{NittanyLionsCoach}}, the dark blue bgcolor obscures the default normal blue of the links. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Dissent - I'm sorry, but I don't like the way that it looks. Maybe... and I mean MAYBE something at the bottom. But it just adds clutter to a simple navigational tool. CJC47 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't mind the clutter. In fact, I went ahead and added added v/d/e links to and reduced the size of a similar template: {{GeorgiaFootballSeasons}}. My only reservation is the variation in sizes of navigational templates where you have pages with several. Will a page like Steve Spurrier wind up with boxes of three different widths? (succession boxes, coach boxes, SEC coaches box).--Tlmclain | Talk 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Width variance is a good point, but also consider that each of the instances you mentioned have their own "standard" wdith - all succession boxes are a certain width, all coaches boxes will be, etc. So, it's not really as much of a concern looking at different types of boxes, just making sure all boxes of the same type are the same width. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question about the DEFAULTSORT. Do we then need to delete the content after the pipe in the categories? Does the DEFAULTSORT override what is already listed? For instance, if we have the DEFAULTSORT on the Paterno article and then there is a cat that is [[Cat:People|Joe Paterno]], does the DEFAULTSORT override it and do we need to delete the |Joe Paterno?--NMajdan•talk 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Defaultsort does not override anything. If there is a |lastname, firstname after an item, it will use that. (I believe it says that in the link I provided above? I'm too lazy to look). My proposal isn't to just change 1 or 2 of these. It's to change ALL 119 (or so) of these templates. Thus, on the page I showed the Buffs example above, all 5 of those would look alike. I didn't think about controlling the colors of the vde/show/hide links. That's a good point. For those with dark background this may be a problem. I don't think we can easilly do it, but we could certainly make a copy of the template for our uses and do it that way. such that the font colors would be just another variable and could control all of those. --MECU≈talk 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd hesitate to create our own version of the template just so we can hack the v-d-e and show/edit links - I imagine that if there was enough discussion about it on the template's talk page, there may be someone who can modify that template to allow for specifying a link color. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • True, but if we did we could simply move them down off the colored bar into the whitespace too. I'm still not clear exactly what CJC47's complaint was. Cluttered where and at what at the bottom of what? --MECU≈talk 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • and to actually answer your question, you don't have to remove it, but if it's not any different to default sort, there's no reason for it. --MECU≈talk 18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Are you proposing only making this change to college coaches or to all football coaches? Because if we left the NFL navboxes alone, then Tlmclain's concern about size variation is valid, especially when you consider an article like the one for Pete Carroll, who has boxes for two NFL teams and one college team. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It should be noted that the templates will all be hidden by default when 4 or more of them appear on the page (and I'm not sure of a way to make them be shown by default). An example of them being hidden can be seen at the bottom of my userpage. VegaDark 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I'm fine with not making them 90% of the with, that's fine. The we'll still match the NFL ones. We can force them to be open regardless of the state of how many other templates, but I think we should almost force them closed so they don't take up space and if someone wants to see it great, if not, there's less clutter.... --MECU≈talk 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• As a solution to the vde show/hide color problem on dark backgrounds, we could subst: it in those cases and manually change the font colors for those links. We would keep the non subst: in commented out code in case there is an update we could re subst: it easily then. I've asked for the optional field to control the vde show/hide links on the templates talk page, so we'll see how far that goes. If not, the subst: is an option. --MECU≈talk 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The response at the navigation template was it can't be done with that template and that we should create our own project meta template. I think this is a good idea as we would also be able to standardize some of the other settings, such as where the titlebar links to, what the text on it says and other such items as allowing color codes easier with the vde and show/hide. I tried using the rugby solution and couldn't get it to work to change the link color. With the template coders we have here in the project, and even the help of the user that replied, we should be able to get this done quite easily. Are there any other features or items that folks think should be included in these templates? Is there anyone still really opposed to adding the vde, hide/show or creating our own project template for this? The same template could be used on the season navigation template and other such templates that are likely to start popping up soon (starting quarterbacks, etc). --MECU≈talk 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've started a template to work on this to see if it's even feasible. Template:CFB navbox. Help is greatly appreciated, especially if you're good with CSS/style/font coloring. --MECU≈talk 18:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So the collapseable doesn't seem possible with dark backgrounds, at least, to make it look semi-okay (it's added by javascript after rendering so it's hard to control, and would require getting the javascript changed, I think). So, do we still want the VDE links? Changing to use that and the other category solution (inclusion, requiring DEFAULTSORT) would still be a benefit, I think. --MECU≈talk 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Any thoughts about Template:CardinalsCoach. The colors (I think) are Black and Red, but someone (I forget who now) complained that black text on red background was hard to read, so they changed it to white. Later, someone changed it to white text on a black background, so now we have black, white and red and it looks, well, ugly (I think). Anyone know the real colors? Anyone else think it's ugly? Anyone have any ideas on how to fix this? Maybe make it black background with red text? --MECU≈talk 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's pretty awful looking. I'm of the opinion that having the different-colored navboxes is not a great idea simply because of the problems that occur when you put multiple boxes on one page. But, barring that, I would say just make it white text on red background, as red on black will not contrast enough to be usable. It's not really necessary that every single team color is represented in these navboxes, just sufficient enough to differentiate between multiple ones (which, I guess, was the original intent). PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

{{CFB navbox}} is updated and ready for use with the changes as above and I believe agreed upon solution (both technically and otherwise). Unless anyone objects, I'll apply all the changes across the board to all the coach templates over the next week -- Monday at the earliest. --MECU≈talk 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made

I've made all the changes to the coach templates. I've also standardized where the title links to, as there were many variations. They all now link to the "<school> <nickname> football" page, whether it exists or not. As such, it's time to go through all the templates and add DEFAULTSORT to the pages (it's now even in the handy edit box for ease!). You can then remove the coach categories that are included by the template, which are only the ones the person was a head coach for. If any other coach categories exist for his assistant coaching positions, you need to leave those. But sure to make a comment in the edit summary that you are removing these categories because they are now included by template, so hopefully you won't get accused of vandalism. Also, you could help out and verify if the article is a stub and if it has the project banner on the talk page. If you don't feel comfortable rating the article, that's fine, but putting at least {{WikiProject College football}} on the talk page will be a great help! So pick your favorite schools and run through them! I appreciate the help. (I've already done Wyoming BTW).

Also, we should try and get the NFL and MLB projects to use our navbox so it matches a little better with the surrounding ones and they can have the VDE capability too. And if the capability ever arrives of colorizing the hide/show, we can add all them instantly with one change. --MECU≈talk 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistant coaches category?

Lastly, I came across Category:LSU assistant football coaches. Do we really need a category for assistants off Category:LSU Tigers football coaches? I think it's an okay idea. If folks agree, then while we're going through all the pages for the above reasons, we could convert any remaining football categories to the assistant varieties. Any thoughts? --MECU≈talk 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think an assistant coach category is necessary. I'd even go so far as recommending that for WP:CFD. Too much overcategorization.↔NMajdan•talk 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Preface: I didn't create the category. When I saw this category I really liked it because it gave us the ability to differentiate assistant coaches from head coaches. For example, one time a long time ago I clicked on the Category:LSU Tigers football coaches link and saw that it had Mack Brown in it. Now, I knew Mack Brown was never the head coach of LSU, but even though I'm a super-huge LSU fan, I never knew he was an assistant coach at LSU prior to that day. At first I thought it was a mistake, but then I read Mack Brown's article and saw it mention his time at LSU. The assistant coach category helps clear up that confusion. The assistant coach category is nicely populated with coaches that are now or have been head coaches at other schools, or are expected to get head coaching jobs in the future (Bo Pelini and Jimbo Fisher). I think it would be great for other schools to have the same thing. For example, I'm sure major programs like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Florida, etc. have had some assistant coaches go on to do some great things. And as much as I know about college football, I still learn new stuff all the time. And Wikipedia allows that because of categories like this one in question. I vote to keep the category and to create similar categories for schools that have enough coaching stars to justify it. Seancp 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I was considering creating one of these for Oregon State. There are 20 or so people in the coach category, 5 of which were only assistants. I think it could be useful if there are enough people in the category that were not head coaches. I think if they should be allowed, we should have Category:x head football coaches as well as a subcategory of Category:x football coaches, and no articles should be in the parent category. If someone was an assistant before (or after) they became head coach of the same school, should they only be in the head coach category, or both? If we did this we would have to come up with a consensus for that. VegaDark 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for games in schedule

On the 2007 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets basketball team, I wrote it so that there's a column for one or more references per game. Is there any easy way to do that for a football article using {{CFB Schedule Entry}}? Would that be a good feature to work into the CFB Schedule templates? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely possible, whether it's a good idea is another issue. Is someone really going to complain that the games and results aren't sourced? I guess with the whole WP:Attribution policy it's a good idea, but it seems a little over-the-top. --MECU≈talk 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is going to complain. You could always place those references in the References section. And, no, I don't believe we can modify the template. You can't use refs inside of a template. I know, I've tried.↔NMajdan•talk 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Disavian's asking about adding the <ref>{{cite web | ... }}</ref> within the template itself, but rather just adding a column for references that can be added by the editor. Regardless, I think those refs could be added elsewhere in the schedule table (see my earlier comment below). — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be done, but wouldn't it also suffice to add the reference as part of the "score" parameter? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that can be done. I really don't think it is necessary though. But as PSUMark states, you could just add it to the score. So something like this:

| score = 34-12^[1]

Would that work? I'm real hesitant to add a column for this.↔NMajdan•talk 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant, sorry if I was confusing by saying to add it "as part of the "score" parameter". — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD of List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football

List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football. --MECU≈talk 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And why would this list be noteable? It used to be known as Division I-AAA. -- KelleyCook 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a discussion for the AFD page. There is no need to comment here as well. --MECU≈talk 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia College Football project needs a policy about Fanboy sites

• Another AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HornFans. This one is about a fan site for Texas sports teams (primarily football, as you might imagine). Johntex\^talk 05:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I was the one who AFD them. This page was recently created, but I think having any football fanboy sites is a track that Wikipedia should not go down. If HornFans is allowed, the basketball sites will be next. And you think puffery and edit waring on the Univerisity football pages is bad. Wait until people realize there are entries for their rival Fanboy sites. EDSBS and a stub soonerfans also have just popped up. I left EDSBS until the result of this AFD, but this needs to be debated here -- KelleyCook 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think all three of those sites should stay as I believe we could find verifiable sources that speak of their popularity. But man, the soonerfans article is in poor shape. Apparently, one of our editors made a post there saying he is wanting to improve our coverage of Sooner sports so I bet that article was created by that. There is even a link in the article to the post. I agree with the speedy tag on it until something better can be created. Soonerfans is known throughout the online-sports-messageboard world for their farks (photoshopping of images).↔NMajdan•talk 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to team pages that might not exist

One of the slightly annoying problems with team year pages is that some of them don't exist. So when we make a schedule section for the 2006 Virginia Tech Hokies football team and the Hokies play Duke, Duke doesn't have an article right now. But at some point in the future they might. A similar problem might occur if we want to refer to the Southern Methodist Mustangs football program. Right now, there is neither an article about their football team nor even about their athletics department. So I would have to link to the school and at some point when one of the articles gets written, we have to go through the annoying process of fixing the link.

Well, I've created a new template that will solve this issue: {{alternate links}}.

If I want to link to the SMU football team, I would use this line:

{{alternate links|Southern Methodist Mustangs football|Southern Methodist Mustangs|Southern Methodist University|title=SMU}}

The resulting link would be: SMU

The same would work for team year pages. The 2007 Florida State Seminoles football team page doesn't exist yet, but it will at some point:

{{alternate links|2007 Florida State Seminoles football team|Florida State Seminoles football|Florida State Seminoles|Florida State University|title=Florida State}}
{{alternate links|2006 Florida State Seminoles football team|Florida State Seminoles football|Florida State Seminoles|Florida State University|title=Florida State}}

This would give us: Florida State (2007) or Florida State (2006).

So anywhere that we have a table of opponents, we can use this template and it will always generate a blue link and will always have the best available link available. Any thoughts? --BigDT 06:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There's one other thing that I thought of that we could do with this. We could make a {{cfb link}} that would accept "2006", "Florida State Seminoles", and "Florida State University". It would then go through the same logic of which link to show, but it would give us the added flexibility of in the future changing our display to something like this - Virginia Tech (team, school). (I'm not saying we would - I'm just throwing that out there as a potential reason for making your code generic.) --BigDT 15:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I tried to create something like this months ago but failed. I think it's important to note that we should only use this when trying to link to a season page, or football page when we know it doesn't exist. There's no sense in replacing all the current links with this. It's also important to trying and incorporate all the possible links you can (without overlinking!) to help build the web of WP. So, if you're linking to the 2007 page, and you know it exists, then don't use this. --MECU≈talk 15:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I went on and put together {{cfb link}}. Check it out. I think this one will work even better. --BigDT 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assist WPP:BIO

In an effort to assist the Biography WikiProject, I've been trying to add our biography articles to the Sports and Games task force. To me, it makes perfect sense to try to get our articles exposed to as many groups as possible. So, if you come across a talk page of a biographical article in our project, please add it the Biography WikiProject. If the article is not apart of the Biography WP at all, add {{WPBiography|living=|class=|sports-work-group=yes}} and if it already has the WPBiography banner, just add |sports-work-group=yes to it. Thanks for the help!↔NMajdan•talk 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I would really appreciate any help in knocking out the list of the unassessed college football articles.↔NMajdan•talk 18:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll chip in later tonight. Thanks for letting us know of the need! — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got all the biographical articles finished. We're down to less than 100 compared to 300+ as we were a couple days ago. I'll try to finish the rest of these off soon unless somebody beats me to it.↔NMajdan•talk 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stadiums and attendance

Doe we have something like List of college football stadiums by atttendance? Johntex\^talk 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but maybe List of college football stadiums would be more appropriate: have it sorted by attendance, location, most recent expansion, length of usage, etc. Thoughts? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I would like to start the article but I wanted to make sure we didn't have one by a different name (our search feature being less than 100% reliable about these things). What else should be included? Home team(s)? Date of first game? Date of record attendance? Should there by two attendance columns, one for official capacity and one for record capacity (which is usually bigger)? Johntex\^talk 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely home teams, either date of first game or year of completion, and record attendance (with date and/or game information if we can find it). I do think making the distinction between listed capacity and record attendance would be helpful as well. Something like this, perhaps. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a good start. I think maybe we should seperate out City/State to make it easier to find stadiums within one state.

We might be able to get by without "Conference" since that is given by the school, but on the other hand it may be handy to skim the list and easily look for a given conference.

Also, should we include or exclude venues like Reliant Stadium that are pro stadiums that happen to host college games from time to time? Put them in a seperate portion of the article? Include them in the main table but with a symbol indicating they don't have a regular college home team?

Should we include defunct stadiums? Johntex\^talk 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Separating city/state makes sense to me. I based having the conference column on how this site lists stadiums, which may be helpful for some. However, we do run the risk of making the table excessively wide. It could be helpful to also include a section for bowl stadiums, "all-star game" stadiums, and the like, but in a separate section from "regular season" stadiums maybe? Defunct stadiums as well - if they were used in the regular season, they may be suitable for in the "main" table with some sort of a symbol. I can help out a bit more tonight when I get back from class. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do you mind if I play in your sandbox if I have time while you are in class? (That sounds sort of K-6, doesn't it?) Johntex\^talk 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea and looks like a great start! Featured List here we come!↔NMajdan•talk 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To make the list manageable, perhaps we should restrict it to only the home fields of Division I-Bowl Subdivision. This way, there would be a concrete criteria for inclusion, and the list would be much easier to maintain. It could also help keep the width down since we would not need a column to explain what type of stadium it is. Johntex\^talk 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest! I agree that we should keep it to I-FBS only to make it definite, but we could still include defunct stadiums, no? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(re-set) I think we should keep conference because it allows for better sorting (quickly find out who has the largest stadium in each conference, for example). It does look like a good start. z4ns4tsu\^talk 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so that would mean we include any stadium that has ever been the home stadium for a team that is or ever was in I-FBS (or its predecesor I-A I guess). That sounds good. I agree keeping the Conference column makes sense for sorting. Johntex\^talk 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, be sure to check the List of stadiums article to make sure we're being consistent. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the defunt stadiums might be a problem with respect to filling in the table. I don't know if we will be able to even find all the stadiums, much less their attendance records. Perhaps we should save the defunct stadiums for a seperate list to be made later? Johntex\^talk 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine with focusing on active stadiums for now in the interest of making sure we have a complete list of them to start. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved this to List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums since we now have several stadiums listed and several people working on it. I will also copy this conversation to Talk:List of Division I-FBS college football stadiums so we can continue discussion there. Johntex\^talk 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yearly page formats

• "Post-season" vs "After the season": I Think that the "Post-season" section could better be renamed to something like "After the season". A conversation on this point has started on an article talk page. Please come by and participate. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Name a new page

Please take a look at the LSU Tigers football page and look at the sections titled "Rankings" & "Results vs. AP Top 10 Opponents". I think that information is great information but I don't think it belongs in the LSU Tigers football article. I don't want to get rid of it, though, so I'm thinking of creating a new article and I need help naming it. The best I could come up with was LSU Tigers football statistics but that's not really accurate because this info isn't statistics. What would be a good article title for information of this variety? I don't think it should be too narrow, like LSU Tigers football rankings or LSU Tigers football results versus AP top 10 opponents because that limits it too much. I'd like a title that is welcoming of the typical information you'd find in the school's football media guide. You know....all those tidbits of information that are great but really don't fit into specific category. So, anyone have any suggestions? Thanks for your help! Seancp 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LSU Tigers football history? It could include poll history among other things in that article as well, and it wouldn't be too narrow. VegaDark 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That almost sounds to overly broad to me. If I stumbled upon that article, I would expect to see an actual history of LSU Tigers football, not just random statistics. You want your article title to sum up exactly what is in the article so if that is all the article will ever contain, then a limiting title may be necessary. Now, if you plan on writing a history of the football program at LSU, then that title would be ok.↔NMajdan•talk 21:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is almost too discriminate, with a positive bias for the team's history (in other words, it's not NPOV IMHO). I'll venture a guess that the record is fairly good? Anyways, anything short of Colorado Buffaloes football year-by-year results (or broken down further, like, "Colorado Buffaloes football results since 2000") would be too arbitrary a cutoff point. The only way I can see to make it balanced is to include all ranked opponents, not just top 10. Be sure to include a tid-bit about this in the main LSU football article and use Template:main to link to this one so you can claim it's more of a sub-page than a separate article. --MECU≈talk 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I actually went and looked at it and don't think it's POV pushing, but in general, that article needs way more citations: there are 2 for the whole article. Especially the section on "Prominent players": Who says? There are players listed there that aren't listed as being an All-American ever, so it doesn't make sense to me. If you can show to me another media guide that presents the same information, I'd clearly say it's welcome. I don't think the current top-10 section is that long, but I could see it getting very long. Perhaps that information could just go on the LSU Tigers under Nick Saban types? The rankings info could as well. Also, you are overlinking items. You don't need to link every instance a coach's name appears or every single-year date. See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Once per section is acceptable. You can look at the top-ten results section after I cleaned up this aspect of it for an example. Also, sorry for claiming you were POV pushing. --MECU≈talk 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback requested on scoring summary templates

I'd like some feedback on this template system I put together before I move it to Template space. Also, if you have a better name for it I'd appreciate that as well. See User:Mecu/AmFootballScoreSummaryStart. I also think it could be jazzed up a little, color-wise if someone has any ideas. Feel free to edit it in the current location too. --MECU≈talk 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• After looking at User:Mecu/AmFootballScoreSummaryEntry, I'm not sure it's necessary to have to be so discrete with the parameters. I'm all for standardization but this might end up being too confusing/difficult to implement. Why not just have a "description" param to describe the type of score, instead of having to piece together a bunch of different params based on what kind of scoring drive it was? I can certainly appreciate the amount of effort put into this, though! In terms of overall appearance, though, I like it. How about an additional column for scoring drive length/time? — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I like it. I agree with PSUMark. I'd like to see a drive length/time/# of plays column or something similar.↔NMajdan•talk 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)I standardized the description entry so that it would be standardized for all pages. Otherwise, some may put "<Player> scored a touchdown, 85-yards from a pass from <QB>, kick was good from <Kicker>"... whereas I believe the standard way I did it was more in lines with the official scoring summaries they are done from schools and other sites. But I do see your point about being almost too complex to use. Scoring drive length/time is a good idea. Thanks for the feedback. --MECU≈talk 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How about leaving the standardization options that you implemented but also having some sort of a "default description" param that can be used in the interest of quickly getting the information online and that would override the rest of the params? That way especially in the interest of getting summaries up quickly after a game we could use a less "formal" description and then later go in and tweak it so that it utilizes the more standardized stuff? My only fear is that having so many params would scare away casual users - if there was a way to include a comment that outlined the "official" format for editors to follow so that they can do so without having to break it down into pieces for the template, that might be a safe compromise (there aren't too many casual readers of WP that will notice if it's not "official", so if we don't get around to reformatting it as such right away it won't be a big deal but it'll encourage others to contribute in a method they feel comfortable with). — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Brilliant idea. Done. --MECU≈talk 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
          • OH MY GOD!!! I will have to put arsenic in all your soup. If you folks keep coming up with great ideas like this I will never be able to stop twiddling with football articles. Now I am going to have to go back and edit them all to put in this table. Jeez. It's enough to make me go watch basketball or slit my wrists or something. Johntex\^talk 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Good. It'll give you and the rest of us something to do in the seemingly endless offseason. :-) (Now I'm going to have to hire someone to taste all of my food from now on...) — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've "published" to template space for use. Template:AmFootballScoreSummaryStart. Does anyone think this would be good or bad to use in the season articles under the weekly summaries? Or should it only be used in articles wholly about a game, such as a bowl game? --MECU≈talk 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My initial thinking is that if there was a way to have a parameter to auto-collapse the summary (like {{Dynamic navigation box}}), it would be a useful addition to the game summaries on season articles. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. The forced-width 70% I don't like, so if someone encounters a problem with this, I can quickly add a field to allow controlling the width. --MECU≈talk 12:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Very cool! — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knute Rockne on WP:AID

I nominated Knute Rockne, one of the top college football articles for Wikipedia Article Improvement Drive. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment statistics

I added a historical table to the assessment page. Let me know what you think.↔NMajdan•talk 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks very good! Very interesting data. Thanks for doing this.

If I click on the "unassessed" link in Feb 2007, it takes me to Category:Unassessed-Class articles which is a page listing categories of unaccessed articles. However, there is no subcategory listed for Category:Unassessed college football articles. Is this because the category is currently empty? Johntex\^talk 07:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. The category parameter was "college football articles" as opposed to "College football articles" so it was being categorized under a lower case c which came after all the upper case A-Z. I changed it and now its right there with College basketball.↔NMajdan•talk 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 College Football Hall of Fame ballot

I just created the 2007 College Football Hall of Fame ballot article. There are actually articles for most of the men on the ballot, but there are still quite a few red links. If they're good enough to be on the CFB HOF ballot, they should probably have an article about them. Of course, if you have ideas for the list as well, please feel free to edit. I'm thinking this is more of a list, so I'd like to push this to a featured list, once the selections are announced in May. --MECU≈talk 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, looks great. I'm working on de-red linking Clendon Thomas. Its his last chance to get inducted.↔NMajdan•talk 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

De-red linking is so tedious, you know? I've been working on List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni#American football, and let me tell you, it isn't fun. Perhaps I'll kill two birds with one stone and do the one guy that's on both lists next. That article looks great, by the way. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need opinion on a couple templates

There are a couple templates I worked on a few weeks ago that I'd like to get this project's opinion on. One was requested by the College basketball WikiProject. It was to create a basketball equivalent to {{NCAATeamFootballSeason}}. Instead of creating a near duplicate of this template, I was able to modify it to handle both sports. You can view it at User:Nmajdan/Test. I have had one complaint that combining these two was not a good idea. I wanted to get other opinions before I moved my version to template-space and renamed the template. Since it would now handle football and basketball, the name would have to change (but the current name would still redirect to the new name so nothing would break).

Another new template was created that looked identical to {{Infobox college athletics}} so I suggested that it may be possible to combine these templates into one. This template can be viewed at User:Nmajdan/Template1. Right now, it combines the general athletic infobox, a wrestling team infobox, and a basketball team infobox. It was well received by one editor but, again, I wanted to get a wider opinion before proceeding.

Any advice would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm impressed. Then again, I'm the one that requested in the first place, so of course I'm happy :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why these essentially redundant templates shouldn't be consolidated. Infobox standardization is always a good thing in my book. Great work as usual. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my thoughts. If we can get one infobox customizable enough to do exactly what individual templates would do, except standardizes everything, that is a big improvement. Could be expanded for baseball and other sports as well. VegaDark 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Got the first one done. I'll update {{Infobox college athletics}} tomorrow.↔NMajdan•talk 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding more Bowl Information to Yearly History Template

There was a discussion here[1] about the Yearly History Template. One of the suggestions which was carried out was to remove the three seperate columns for the Bowls (Bowl Name, Bowl Outcome, Bowl Opponent) that had existed in the old Coaching History Template.

I had been unaware that the Coaching History Template had been deprecated, and so I had added it to a number of pages (Bear Bryant, Steve Spurrier, etc...), I had also included all of the extra Bowl information.

So, my question is - is anyone opposed if those columns get added back (as optional) to the Yearly History Template? I'm planning on transitioning some of these coaches pages to use the new template, and I'd like to see that information stay there. Obviously, I spent a bit of time tracking down all this info for six or seven different coaches throughout their careers at different schools, so partly I'd just like my work to stay around :-P But on a more impartial note, given that Bowls are the postseason for college football, I do think that listing the opponent adds something to the tables beyond simply taking up extra space. Compare [2] with [3]. I like being able to see at a glance that Pete Carroll has beaten Michigan twice in the Rose Bowl, as opposed to just seeing that he's 2-1 in three Rose Bowl appearances.

Thoughts? Cogswobble 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this user doing?

I see this user moving lots of articles out of the American Football category. The user is relatively new, and is not using an edit summary. Some of the changes might be OK, but others baffle me. For instance, why change the category of a photo of Ralphie from "American Football" to "Photos in the United States". I have tried to contact the user but I think he/she may no longer be online. I am tempted to revert all these changes but I would like a second opinion first, please. Johntex\^talk 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I randomly clicked on a few. They appear to be in good faith ... and most of them seem to be good ideas ... although the Ralphie one [4] doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't suggest reverting all of them ... but some of the strange ones could be. Ralphie should be in Category:Colorado Buffaloes football, not American football or US photos. --BigDT 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This user might need a polite reminder to use edit summaries and talk pages, but it certainly appears that they are doing good faith edits. As BigDT implies, I may disagree with the results of some of his moves, but this does not to be, on the whole, a vandlism or disruption problem. He's being WP:BOLD, but isn't that what we want. If there are questionable moves, bring it up on the users talk page and on the article talk page. In general, categorization should always be moved down to the lowest level category, and it appears that he is simply doing that. Really, Category:American Football is quite a high-level category, and should have very few articles directly assigned to it. This doesn't appear to be a problem upon further investigation. He SHOULD be encouraged to always use edit summaries, since seeing MANY changes made in a short time does send up red flags, but that's about it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your feedback. I never meant to imply these edits were vandalism. If I thought that, I would have reverted them on sight. Personally, I think WP:BOLD is quite over-rated though. When one person makes a lot of bad-bold changes, someone else has to do a lot of work to undo them. In this case a few edits I looked at look to me like bad moves. He is NOT universally moving things inot lower down categories. Moving something from Americna Football >> US photos is moving the wrong way, or laterally at best. That is why I wanted a second opinion. If the changes are to be undone, it is easier when they are the most recent changes to the article so that the undo button can be used. Johntex\^talk 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the questionable moves. Just be careful when dealing with new users, though. Remember to treat them well and help rather than correct. Look at this guys contribs list, he seems to be doing a lot of categorization work, and such mundane tasks are some of the most thankless work at Wikipedia. We need to be careful that while we are helping him become a better editor, we don't discourage him from helping out with this much needed job. I notice that you left some notes on fixes you have made to his questionable moves. Thanks and please continue to do so, as well as letting him know how to properly categorize articles. Thanks again, and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I left him a polite message before I ever posted here. The fact that he did not reply, coupled with the fact that his contributions record showed no recent edits, is what motivated me to come here to seek added input. Johntex\^talk 07:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)