Talk:2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured list2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 2, 2006Featured list candidatePromoted
October 9, 2011Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

Discussion of this page[edit]

A discussion concerning this page and the soon-to-be-created page for the 2006 season can be found on this talk page:talk.--NMajdan•talk 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this should be rated FA since it's not really an article and a list -- which is why I origionally rated it NA. Not that it matters what to rate it now, since it's featured already, but it should be rated Mid or High, with previous years Low or Mid. Anyways, ready to move on to 2004? --MECU≈talk 13:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I guess I didn't think it mattered. It is an important addition to the WikiProject and just because its not at article, it is still important. I would think that things that don't apply but may still have the template (and thus be rated NA) would be other templates and WikiProject pages, not pages that contain pertinent information.--NMajdan•talk 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks[edit]

Ok, should be unlink the AP poll and move all the links to the BCS poll since it is first on the page?--NMajdan•talk 21:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think each section should have the first appearance of each time linked. There's no guarrantee the BCS poll will cover all the teams that appear in the other lists, nor should someone looking at a poll have to search the other polls for the school they want to get to. --MECU≈talk 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Column Widths[edit]

Why are the column width so wide? Seems to be pointless to me, just let it auto width. --MECU≈talk 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it auto sizes, i think it takes too much space vertically. I like everything being on one line as opposed to running over to two or three lines. I'm using a 1024x768 monitor and I really didn't like the way it looked when it was autosized.--NMajdan•talk 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an option somehow to set it to not wrap each line for the whole table easilly? Or at least, could we make the width not so much larger than the largest text? I'm on a 1600x1200 screen and it looks very odd. --MECU≈talk 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is. I've changed it. Let me know what you think and I can do the same to the 2006 page. Thanks for reminding me. I completely forgot about that little bit of CSS.--NMajdan•talk 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks perfect now. --MECU≈talk 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What polls?[edit]

Since this is our test drive page, what polls should we include? You mentioned before ESPN's or Sportsline's Power Rankings, I'd also like to add CBS Sportsline. They rank all 119 teams though, so that could be quite tedious to do. Do we just want to stick to top 25 (or 15 or 16 or whatever)? What about the Bottom 10? ESPN has a "poll" that ranks the bottom 10 in D1A? --MECU≈talk 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind adding some other polls as soon as we complete the big ones already on the page. It'll be harder getting the week-by-week progress of some of those polls. No bottom 10 poll. Also, I would like to add some of the preseason polls on here as well. If not here, then definitely the 2006 page.--NMajdan•talk 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preseason polls[edit]

I've added the table for the preseason polls to my userspace. Feel free to begin populating. Once we get a couple filled out, we can move it to this page to finish.--NMajdan•talk 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, five of the ten preseason polls have been populated so I went ahead and moved it to this page. Now lets finish it up.--NMajdan•talk 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you only include those 10 preseason from that page and not the last 2? --MECU≈talk 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly cause I've never heard of the last two. You can add them though if you wish.--NMajdan•talk 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in Table[edit]

There are a few errors in the coaches table: Week 6 with Ohio State listed twice, one should be Florida State. Week 15 with Iowa listed twice. Week 14 Clemson not showing record. --MECU≈talk 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to correct them now. If you want to, the rankings are still on the ESPN page. If not, I'll fix them tomorrow morning. Thanks for the help. We should be able to get this thing nominated for Featured List by the end of the week.--NMajdan•talk 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's something weird with the Harris poll. You changed week 14 to the week 15 data, but it's all listed wrong. I've got the same info in an edit conflict as well, but it's all messed up. I added week 15 which was the same data as week 14 but slightly different (W/L and other positions) and then looked up week 14 and it had completely different information. I'd like to save my version as is, and then we can just revert to either of ours as needed whichever is correct. Is that okay? --MECU≈talk 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the dates because they were wrong. Week 15 should be Dec 3. This aligns them with the AP and Coaches poll. I, too, noticed that on the Sportline page the Week 15 data is the same as the Week 14 data. I ask that you please not revert the change because there were a lot of other changes there as well. If you want to take a closer look and just overwrite the Harris Poll data, we can change/correct that later. But please don't revert and delete changes made to other polls. This date thing needs to be figured out.--NMajdan•talk 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only made changes to the harris poll. I think Week 14 got omited, so the current week 14 with Dec 4 is wrong and there's a missing week in there. --MECU≈talk 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've been "idle" for a few minutes, I'm going to go ahead and save the page because I believe I've made the changes to the Harris poll that are the correct version. I'm using the date the poll was released, so it should be Dec 4 and Nov 27. The dates between polls may not line up perfectly, but they should, at worst, be off by 1 day for each week. Should you actually think my changes are wrong, please feel free to revert. --MECU≈talk 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes are correct. Glad you spotted that.--NMajdan•talk 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colors[edit]

Should we reduce the use of the background colors since they're basically solid green/red/yellow? Maybe green/red if they move up/down more than 3 ranks, yellow if new still? Also, perhaps some sort of color on the pre-season, green if they picked the team to within 3 (5?) of the final Coaches (or AP?) poll, red if they picked a team that isn't ranked? --MECU≈talk 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fine. We can get the input of the Featured List people and hear what they have to say. It gets more confusing if we're only indicating certain moves.--NMajdan•talk 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

NMajdan, Mecu, that is a tremendous amount of work!!! You deserve a huge pat on the back for this, along with 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)[reply]

Featured List[edit]

  • I think this should be a featured list. Reading through the requirements there, here are some suggestions that might make this list even better:
  1. " A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." - All the teams are linked to articles, but the polls themselves are not. Do they polls have articles we can link to.
  2. " Support facts where appropriate with specifics and external citations..." The article is already very good in this regard. Redundant sources would not be bad, if they are available.
  3. "Comply with the standards set in the style manual, as well as relevant WikiProjects. This includes having a lead section where appropriate, which is brief but sufficient to summarize the nature of the list, and, where appropriate, headings and a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section)." - the lead-in could probably stand to use more than one sentence.
  4. "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, a list does not have to have a picture to be featured." - this one has not been met. Clicking around some current featured list, most of them do have photos. Ex: List of areas in the National Park System of the United States has sample images of a few parks. We could do the same. There are free pictures available at commons of college football teams, including some of UT that are definitely from the 2005 season. We could also have the NCAA logo at the top under fair use, I think.

Again, awesome work. The list should be featured even without any changes suggested here. Johntex\talk 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another idea: Perhaps move the legend up and maybe even make a legend per table? It is a little difficult to refer to when you are reading the first table and the legend is so far away. Johntex\talk 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1)The AP Poll does and the link is in the See also section. Articles for the other polls should be created as part of our WikiProject. 3) I agree, a longer lead would be nice. I have a little longer one (I think) on the 2006 page. 5) I don't see a need for 4 legends with the same information. Its not too difficult to understand. One glance and you should understand.--NMajdan•talk 02:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that some reviewers may not be familiar with standard american football won/loss record. It may be better to present the table sooner. Johntex\talk 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see the point. When does the legend come first? There is a link to the legend in the TOC that they can easily click and familiarize themselves with prior to looking at the tables. Legends always come at the bottom.--NMajdan•talk 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does only the AP table feature a symbol for the National Champion. The coaches poll certainly has that concept as well. Johntex\talk 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not really. The Coaches poll, as part of its contract with the BCS, has to award its title to the BCS championship game winner. So, I didn't see a need to differentiate the two.--NMajdan•talk 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added # to indicate who was "selected" the coaches/BCS champion. Perhaps we should have a comment that whoever wins the BCS championship game is required to be voted #1 in the coaches poll? --MECU≈talk 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it accurate to call the BCS ranking a "poll"? It is actually a composite ranking of 2 polls and some computer rankings. Should it be referred to as a ranking? Johntex\talk 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I agree. I think I'll change it to the more accurate "BCS Standings."--NMajdan•talk 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and I always seem to step on eachothers toes. I'm fine with Rankings or Standings. --MECU≈talk 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, yeah. Its fine either way.--NMajdan•talk 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 on Johntex's list) I'll try to add some more redundant sources, but we need to be careful about which ones we add. For instance, the poll page on Sportsline.com is located at this URL: http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls/coaches. Notice how it is simply a generic URL. Once the season starts, its very possible that that URL will then contain the new rankings. We need to make sure we use the URL that goes directly to the 2005 rankings such as the following link to the ESPN 2005 rankings: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?pollId=null&weekNumber=16&seasonYear=2005 .--NMajdan•talk 14:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is far better if the reference is stable, but if there is any doubt, I recommend using the {{Cite news}} template. It accepts a parameter for "accessdate", and the reference does not technically need to be removed if the content changes. It would be like citing a printed book that does not exist online. The fact that it can't be referenced online is unfortunate, but it doesn't mean the reference has to be deleted. It serves to say "on X date, we read this at this location". Johntex\talk 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't know you could do that. Should I include the url? And typically I use {{Cite web}} for resources like that (ESPN, Fox) and {{Cite news}} if it comes from an online newspaper or magazine (or an actual article on one of the sports pages as opposed to just rankings).--NMajdan•talk 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Cite news}} does accept an argument for URL, but it is optional. In my opinion, this is generally a superior template to {{Cite web}} for information that is coming from a news-source. I typically use it for online news-sources such as ESPN, SI, as well as online newspapers like the NYT or whomever. It is equally useful for news stories where you never started with an online version, like a printed magazine you bought at the grocery store, or an NPR radio news program. They are all news. The fact that some of them are available online is a convenience, not a necessity. I would probably steer clear of using {{Cite news}} if it was just a brief mention on ESPN's home page, as opposed to being a real story. Johntex\talk 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Johntex, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was wondering if we should provide a URL when we know that that URL may be dead, or incorrect, within 2 months.--NMajdan•talk 16:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For each section, we don't need a large article about each poll. We should use the {{main}} and just provide a quick summary of each. --MECU≈talk 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree, a comment on the Featured List page requested a five sentence or so description. That seems too much considering you can accurately describe the who and what in 2-3 sentences. I didn't know if we needed to include a {{main}} if there was already a wikilink to that article on the page. But, if you feel it necessary, by all means.--NMajdan•talk 16:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, given the new descriptions, does this mean we will need to copy this exact text to the 2006 article and every article after it?--NMajdan•talk 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so? I agree it seems stupid to repeat it over and over, but if it's the first page someone comes accross, it would be good to have, but then when they look at more and more pages, they'll see they're identical. --MECU≈talk 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Does anyone think it's worth trying to get this page protected since it's prime target for vandalism? The page/info on it should be static, so getting a semi-protection to reduce vandalism may be worth it. I'd expect as this current season goes on, vandalism to increase as more people become aware of the College football stuff on Wikipedia and then coming accross this page. Do we have to have enough proof of vandalism prior to requesting semi-protection? MECU≈talk 00:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth a shot, but generally to get a page protected it has to have a pretty clear history of being vandalized to the point where it takes a lot of effort to revert. That is not the case yet with the page. But I do agree, it is a prime target for vandals to put their team #1 as we have already seen some do.--NMajdan•talk 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So if this starts to become a hassle to revert the vandalism, we can go that route. And if it seems to be a pattern (ie, every season for the last 2 months...) we can do that as well perhaps. But yah, for now, it's not that bad. MECU≈talk 12:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article promoted to Featured List by the FL admins. Nomination here.--NMajdan•talk 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_rankings&oldid=1196471187"