User talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2011 (Jan–Jun)

Navboxes, succession boxes, etc.

JW, a few quick comments about a variety of CFB standardization matters----

1. In a wild holiday fling, I have upgraded the head coach navboxes for the entire ACC (12), Big East (9), Big Ten (12), Big XII (10), Pac-12 (12), SEC (12) and MAC (13), plus independents Army, Navy, BYU and Notre Dame, as well as a handful of CUSA (3), MWC (2), WAC (1) and Sun Belt (2) teams. At last count, that's 92 FBS teams and another 10 or so teams from the lower divisions that now have the "enhanced" coach navbox that makes the college head coach succession boxes redundant and permits their deletion. That's just over 3/4 of the FBS teams, so I'd say we've reached critical mass regarding this issue.

2. To build some momentum for the deletion of the college head coaches navboxes, I have been deleting the navboxes for the current FBS head coaches as I complete the last enhanced navbox for a particular current coach. All of the current head coach articles for the ACC, Big XII and SEC, and most of the Big Ten (8 of 12), Pac-12 (11 of 12) and Big East (6 of 9), have been purged of the redundant navboxes. The complete Gators head football coach succession has been likewise purged. That's a start.

3. I will complete the upgrades to the remaining 30 or so FBS coaches navboxes in the next week or so. After that, I have a targeted list of two dozen or so navboxes from the lower divisions that need to be upgraded to permit the deletion of the final navboxes on the pages of current FBS coaches and other significant. When that's completed, I am going to retreat back into my little Gators empire to work on upgrading the head coach navboxes for the Gators basketball coaches and then deleting the redundant succession boxes from those pages. I also want to complete the set of enhanced head coach navboxes for all Gators sports.

4. When the FBS navbox enhancements are done, hopefully we can get several of the CFB regulars like cmadler, Strikehold, Paul McDonald and Eagles247 to help with deletion of the redundant navboxes. I'm guesstimating there are something like 2,000 coach articles for the 122 FBS programs. I've probably purged something like 5 percent of those. Not a small job. And there will be plenty of lower division navboxes that will still need to be upgraded in order to complete the FBS coach articles.

5. The head coach categories need to be purged. I removed them from the Gators football and basketball articles about 24 hours after their creator was banned. I have found very few head coach category transclusions in the 90+ FBS navboxes that I've reworked. That was an obnoxious practice from the get-go: the transcluded categories were always listed first among all of the categories on a given page, usually something like "Zephyr Hills Community College and Muffler Shop Fighting Mechanics head football coaches." I purged the transcluded categories from the Gators articles about a year ago.

6. Parallelism with things like baseball and politics? Nah. I'm more concerned about navbox and succession box consistency with the CBB and NFL projects, since we share a lot of the same articles with them. My strategy would be to complete the purge of college succession boxes from virtually all of the FBS coach pages, and then leverage the NFL guys to get rid of their succession boxes, too. There are, afterall, only 32 NFL teams. The trick is getting the WP:NFL guys to lose the succession boxes for NFL coordinators and goofy awards. There are apparently some NFL editors who are also still adding starting position succession boxes to articles. The NFL succession boxes are a mess, with no one actively refereeing the problem for retired coach and player articles that overlap heavily with our little CFB domain. I suggest we take this up with Eagles247 when our CFB succession box purge is further along.

7. I'm going to knock out about two dozen enhanced CBB coach navboxes in the next week, too, so I can purge the CBB succession boxes from the Gators basketball coach pages. You might want to consider doing this for the Wolverines hoops coaches, too. I know Strikehold is a Maryland Terrapins fan. Those three programs must share at least 25-30 coaches (and navboxes) with other Division I basketball schools; if we purge those succession boxes, we would be leading WP:CBB by example. I've already enhanced the Florida, Vanderbilt and Kentucky CBB navboxes----good place to start, and I would be willing to tackle the other SEC CBB navboxes, too. The CBB guys agreed to do this, in fact, they were aggressively pushing for it a couple of months ago while citing WP:CBB "policy," but no one seems to be actively reformatting the CBB coach navboxes and purging the succession boxes.

8. I have not been deleting the {{PAGENAME}} from the categories in the navboxes, but I will start doing so now.

9. I created the Florida and Tennessee AD navboxes for use in Gators football coach articles (Bob Woodruff and Doug Dickey were also later UT ADs), but expanded the UT AD navbox to the whole line of UT ADs. The AD navboxes are nice to have when someone else is doing the work, but I can't even begin to imagine creating another set of AD navboxes for every college sports program. Good idea, but it should remain a low priority until the clean-up and standardization work on the CFB articles is completed.

10. Please take a look at the Jim Harbaugh article, specifically the inclusion of the Wolverines football program navbox, and tell me what you think should be done. Is it appropriate to include a comprehensive program navbox on coach and player pages, or just on team and season pages? I've run into this same issue on Alabama, Arkansas and East Carolina coach pages, too, where editors have included football program navboxes, comprehensive athletic program navboxes and even comprehensive university navboxes. What do you think? (Personally, I think it's overkill, and they should be limited to use on team pages.)

Keep cruising with the College Hall of Fame photos. The coach articles look 100% better with the photos. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

JW, you've been a busy beaver last night. Question for you: do we want to purge all of the succession boxes for someone like Dennis Franchione, when there are still multiple un-enhanced lower division navboxes on the page? I'm kinda thinking out loud here, but shouldn't we keep the guys incentivized to complete the navbox upgrades before we delete succession boxes? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

DL, I see your point, but maybe killing the succession boxes is as much of an incentive to upgrade the nav boxes. Not sure. Regardless, the nav box enhancements are most likely going to be executed by savvy regulars. Nonetheless, forgive me if I was a little over-eager to capitalize on your momentum. I've just finished sweeps through the stuff I've spent time editing over the past year: the Big Ten, the Hall of Famers, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Washington, Akron. For many cases in those groups, I was the one who introduced or expanded succession boxes, so I felt compelled to knock those out quickly. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep truckin', my friend. Your progress is great. I suggest we keep a list of the lower division navboxes that still need to be upgraded, so we can circle back and prioritize the remaining upgrades later. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

DL, if we want to keep tabs on the nav box enhancements, we could probably leverage the project pages that Paul McDonald has set up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coach Navboxes. We definitely want to loop Paul in and make sure he's up to speed with the new, enhanced format so that he can incorporate it when he churns out his next batch of lower division coaches.

As for the photos, every deceased guy inducted to the HOF as a coach now has a photo and I'm working on pulling other guys from media guides and elsewhere. I agree, simply adding a photo makes a huge improvement to an article and infuses it with a great deal of personality and differentiation. A side benefit of the photo collecting is now I have an expansive gallery of crusty, dead guys on my hard drive. ;)

I found a couple more AD nav boxes: Georgia Tech and LSU. I still have to take a look at the Jim Harbaugh article. Oh, and the Zephyr Hills Community College and Muffler Shop Fighting Mechanics? Didn't Michigan lose their season opener in 2007 to those guys? Wait, that was Appalachian State. ;) Jweiss11 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Update

MWC and CUSA are ready for the navbox purge. BTW, I'll take care of the ASU navbox; wouldn't want you to get that FCS stuff stuck to your Wolverine claws. Just be happy those Mountaineers didn't make Brunswick stew out of your mascot. (I hear Wolverine kits taste a lot like squirrel.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just finished purging the succession boxes from the MWC and CUSA. It went pretty quickly since I had already hit a lot of these guys in the sweeps through the other conferences and there was a lot less of my own handiwork to undo in those parts. You guys eat a lot of squirrel down south, huh? We leave them for the crows up north. There's no ill will toward App St. I've done a bunch of editing on Jerry Moore and have used him as template of sorts for the lower-division coaches, re: playoff results, etc. As devastating as that debacle was in 2007 (honestly, I think it hit me harder than 9/11, which I witnessed first-hand!), these days I'm living in a whole new era of wacky, care-free, "we kinda suck" Michigan football. No longer will the collective psyche of a nation and fate of the free world rest on Mike Hart's shoulders...at least those boys sent old Lloyd out with a W against your Heisman heartthrob. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's like everything in life, JW, it goes in cycles. The Wolverines will be back, and relatively soon. I'll miss Urban Meyer, just like I miss Spurrier, but I think Jeremy Foley and the Gators did pretty well with the Will Muschamp hire. Now, it remains to be proven on the field.

FYI, Rikster2 and Jrcla2 have jumped into the navbox upgrade/succession box purge fight over at WP:CBB, and Jrcla has already started upgrading basketball coach navboxes and FCS football coach navboxes. Looks like we may have finally generated some momentum. Once Paul McDonald and some of the other guys join in, we'll be off to the races on the lower division football coach navboxes, too. You may want to drop an encouraging word over at the CBB project talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good suggestion about dropping a note over at CBB. I was thinking about something along those lines. A more challenging project might be to get the NFL project to sync up on this. That project doesn't seem to have the same sort of critical mass of regulars like CFB, but Eagles 24/7 might be a good liaison; he seems to be active in both spheres. Thanks again for kicking this off. A know there has been a ton of a debate about this issue, but at some point someone had to jump in first and take action, and you did. I think all we have left now to upgrade in FBS is the WAC and the Sun Belt.

I'm sure Florida will continue to be one of the top teams in the nation year-in and year-out. Whether they win two nat'l titles in a three-year span again sometime soon, I don't know. What's the skinny on Muschamp? Sounds like he was the crown prince over in Austin, but who knows, Mack Brown could have 10 or even 20 years left. He's only 59. Timing wise, it's weird that he just had his first bad season ever with the Longhorns. Yeah, Michigan will we be back sometime or another. I wasn't a huge Rodriguez guy from the outset (three years ago I really wanted Kirk Ferentz if could have picked anyone in the country), but at this point I'm hoping he gets one more year to develop the Denard show and maybe put out a defense that I personally couldn't throw for 300 yards against. But a lot of my Michigan pals are rumbling about him getting canned after the Gator Bowl. Really, for next year, I just want to beat Tresselball. It's getting absurd. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, JW, Sun Belt navboxes are updated and ready for you to work your succession box purgative magic. I'll try to finish the remaining WAC navboxes tonight and tomorrow. Good way to start the New Year, eh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DL, Sun Belt is clear. Happy new year. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Finished the last two WAC templates this morning. Happy New Year, and have at it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WAC is clear. I believe that finishes up the FBS. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Brief update re navbox tweaks. I have inserted collapsed state codes in the last 25 or so of the 122 FBS navboxes. I missed some of these among my early edits, and as you probably know, several of the CBB and NFL guys have raised this as a minor objection to the enhanced navbox format. Okay, then, problem solved. I have also deleted the PAGENAME sort code from the categories within the navboxes since you mentioned it; unfortunately, that was relatively late in the process, and I guess-timate something like half still have it, so you may want to check for it any time you are tweaking one of the navboxes. All in all, I think we did great work in the causes of better formatting and CFB standardization in the space of a month. If we can get the WP:NFL guys on board with the upgraded navboxes and succession box deletion, that would be another big step forward. I've been nudging some of the regulars to join the conversation on the WP:NFL talk page.

This week, I'm going to work on SEC basketball coach navboxes and a few targeted others that overlap with the Gators basketball coaching succession. With a little luck, I may even actually edit some article text again, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm about half-way through the FCS cleaning out the transcluded categories and other ugly stuff and slowing down here and there to do a little development, e.g. Mel Taube. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The College football Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for being such a relentless contributor and working hard to improve the uniformity and quality of college coaching articles. —Ute in DC (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

JW, can you enable your Wikipedia email under "my preferences" or email me through my email link on the right-hand toolbox menu on my user page? I have a problem that is driving me crazy, and I would prefer to discuss it off-wiki because of the strong likelihood that I am going to engage in extreme profanity while discussing it. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just enabled e-mail in my preferences. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, do you haven email address for Strikehold? He may be in need of some off-wiki bucking up (take a look at the Irv Smith comment on his talk page), He's a big Maryland Terrapins fan, and I would hate for anything to interrupt his CFB, CBB and NFL work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

In one of my many, on-going personal projects here I am eventually going take care of all of the redlinks for the List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games. For a loss, the 1954 Cotton Bowl Classic is defiantly one of our more memorable contests...Roll Tide! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 NCAA season page error

Any way to easily fix the glaring spelling error on the page? I think the 2011 Michigan page is the only one that currently directs there, but I may be wrong. Every other 2011 season page that I have seen has a red link to the NCAA page. SCS100 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just fixed the 2011 NCAA page with a move. Thanks for the heads up. I had linked to it from the 2011 Michigan page the other day and missed the spelling error. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just couldn't figure out what had happened and wasn't sure how to fix it myself. SCS100 (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Georgetown (KY)'s conference before 1995

JW, I'm not sure when the Mid-South Conference was established. I found your reference to a 1995 establishment date; however, there seems to be evidence that the conference existed in some manner before that date. I updated some links on the Kevin Donley article, the ones that reference Georgetown records and Hall of Fame. See Donley article, refs #[5] and [6]. The 1989 and 1991 MSC are mentioned multiple times here in the official Georgetown Athletics webpages. Also, I followed the Donley link to the College Football Data Warehouse. Once there, I selected "NAIA Conferences" from the links at the top of the page. Scroll down that page to find "Mid-South", which lists Georgetown as a member. Click on "Mid-South", and continue on to go to the CFDW "MSC History" of that conference; those pages show the conference began in 1987, with G'town as a charter member. The "Championships" link takes you to a recap of all championships from 1987 (a three-way tie that included G'town) to present. I hope this helps. Jlhcpa (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich Rodriguez??

Rodriguez got canned? Hope springs eternal in Ann Arbor, eh? Amazing how somebody can go from being a hero in West Virginia, to being persona non grata in two states three years later. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in favor of the decision, nor the waves of crappy/vandal wiki-editing that is sure to follow. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not surprising. There were some Gators fans calling for Urban Meyer's head this year, too. My response to that was: "huh?"

Wow, only a dope would call for Meyer's head after one mediocre season following the graduation of his franchise guy. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They should have been at least two wins better than than 7–5 this year. I attribute it to the loss of most of last year's junior stars to the NFL, the loss of Dan Mullen to Mississippi State, and the fact that Meyer didn't seem to be 100% himself. Next season is going to be interesting: it will be the first in 20 years when there is no substantial continuity among the HC, OC and DC and the previous coaching regime. Meyer had Charlie Strong as a carryover from Zook, and Zook was a retread from Spurrier's years. Hopefully, the three carryover assistants will provide a measure of continuity, but this really is a completely new regime on both sides of the ball. It's going to be interesting to watch, and the Gators have plenty of young talent. Given the weak state of the SEC East, I think they have the potential to go 10–2 or 10–3, but that will depend on Weis generating some offense and Muschamp coaching up the sophomores and juniors on defense.

College Football Barnstar (with Oak Leaf Cluster)

		The College football Barnstar
		I hereby award you the College Football Barnstar for meritorious service to the WikiProject College Football, above and beyond the call of duty (and to the detriment of your day job), in the inhumanly quick deletion of redundant succession boxes from the articles of all Division I FBS coaches. This being your second citation for the same award, you are hereby authorized and directed to display the ribbon for said award with Oak Leaf Cluster. Congratulations, Jweiss11, and carry on. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No further comment on your work is necessary. If you were French, you would get a kiss on both cheeks and we would all sing the Marseillaise, but then you would probably be working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and not our humble little endeavor. (BTW, no more whining about only getting barnstars from sock puppets—it's unbecoming of a two-time winner of the College Football Barnstar!) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this prestigious honor. I kinda miss our sock-puppeteering, giant-crystal-ball-award-wielding friend. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd opinion

Could you give me an opinion on things going on here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony, Sims should clearly be included in Category:African American basketball players. He ancestry is so obvious, and the category so broad, it's unlikely you will find a source that specifically verifies it. It's a non-controversial categorization anyway. I don't see why you need a citation to include it. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Although you make a clear statement here, at Talk:DeShawn Sims, I am unable to understand your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I'm in agreement with you. I think the argument for not including the category for Sims is pedantically absurd. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fred Green

HNY to you, too. I searched a variety of places but could find no confirmation that football coach Fred Green is the same as Gov. Fred W. Green. I checked his biographies and related stories in newspaperarchive.com, but none mentioned his service as a football coach. Being a football coach for one season at Michigan Norman was probably not considered a big deal in the career of Fred W. Smith. I suspect that you are right that they are the same person, but did not come up with any source to confirm. Cbl62 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The evidence that the two Fred Greens are the same is compelling. The fact that there's no mention of his coaching history just shows how unimportant the (presumably part-time) position of Michigan Normal football coach was in the 1890s. Cbl62 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spending some time on this item. I can't think of a stronger endorsement of this position than one coming from you, as I don't think there is anyone on Wikipedia (or maybe anywhere else) that has done as much research about athletics, particularly in the state of Michigan, during that era as you have. The stuff you just added to the discussion about Michigan Normal and the MIAA is awesome. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Brady Hoke

Thanks for chipping in on the Brady Hoke article. With everyone doing their bit, we've whipped the article into pretty decent shape less than 12 hours after the hiring announcement. Not bad. Cbl62 (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If only we could fix Michigan football so swiftly. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Michigan Football Logo

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but didn't David Brandon alter the Michigan athletics logo to a solid maize block M at some point last year? If he did, should we try and upload an image of said maize M for factual accuracy or should we just continue with the Blue M with Michigan in the middle? Thanks (completely unsure if this is even necessary). SCS100 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realized there had been a logo change. Digging around mgoblue.com, I still see the blue M with yellow outline in some places, but yes, I do see that solid yellow M prominently as well. ESPN is still showing the blue M. Not sure what the move is here. I haven't spent a lot of time on logos, but there are a lot of Michigan guys in the crowd of regular college football/basketball editors here such as User:Cbl62 and User:TonyTheTiger. Might be worth asking for their input on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

M logo

See Talk:Michigan_Wolverines#Solid_Maize_Block_M_vs._split_block_M.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We desperately need feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Willamette football coaches

Can I ask why you are unilaterally making the following edits: "Category:Willamette Bearcats football head coaches-->Category:Willamette Bearcats football coaches"? Generally before emptying (and I would assume deleting) there is a discussion, in which all categories to be effected are listed, and then notices must be placed on those categories under discussion for them to be subject to those in order for everyone to participate. Was there some sort of discussion? I see many of the similar cat for other head coaches now empty as well, so I would hope a discussion took place. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's been a lot of discussion around WikiProject College football about these categories. They have been a problem for some time, never executed in any consistent fashion, often deployed improperly via template transclusion, and were largely created by an editor who is now banned from creating categories because he went nuts with them sometime in 2009. I'm trying to rid us of this plague once and for all. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunetly, that is what I figured. Here's the problem: that wikiproject, nor any wikiproject, owns that or any other category. Obviously the college football WP is the most involved project with those sorts of cats, but those categories could also fall within the purview of the state wikiprojects, WP Universities, and even individual city and school wikiprojects. Which can create conflicts as different projects may have different views. This is why categories for discussion (CfD) exists, to allow the Wikipedia community as a whole to provide input and weigh in on what is best. Personally, I have no love for the cat, but it is not my decision, it is for the entire community to provide input. Also, in general, we do not simply empty categories in order to pave the way for deleting, as covered in the 2nd paragraph at CfD. Feel free to list all the head coaches cats, it can be done in one mass listing, but it needs to be done before emptying them (which a bot takes care of anyway if the decision is to delete or rename). Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I know about the CFD processes. I think, given the many adverse qualities and the particular effect these categories have on the college football project, this is a special case. I'm also roping in a lot of other cleanup to these edits because many of the articles that have these categories have a lot of other very basic problems too. I think the best thing to do is get the house in order and then we can have a debate about the head coaching categories and whether they should exist and, if so, how they can be properly deployed. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Special case or not, it needs to follow the rules, as again, these categories do not belong to your wikiproject. If you attempt to tag the cats with a CSD template as being empty prior to a debate, I will be forced to revert per the CfD process as this would not be of the non-controversial sort. As to other basic problems, not relevant, as I have raised no issue other than the emptying of categories outside of the CfD process. The category issue is the only issue that needs to be discussed. If you want to make other clean-up changes, I have no qualms, have fun. The only issue is the avoidance of properly seeking input from the broader community through the already in-place community approved process hashed out long ago for just this sort of issue. Lastly, we do not usually debate if cats should be created, it is the other way around, we discuss if we want to delete. Sort of like articles, and it fits well with the WP:BOLD mantra. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There definitely should have been a debate before these categories were created. This seems pretty non-controversial to me. What we have is partial deployment by a sanctioned editor of categories that define a discrete set of people, all of whom are notable and have or will have articles. Because this is such a discrete set it should be fully deployed for every single college football program, or not at all. Another big problem is the parent category, i.e. all coaches for a given football program. For guys who served as a head coach and an also, at another time, as an assistant for that program, do they belong in both categories? This was never settled. I don't think any attempt to make such a definition was made by the aforementioned, sanctioned editor when he went on a hell-bent spree of over-categorization in 2009. Putting this out to a larger audience right now, mid-mess, does not seem like a good idea to me. It's likely to invite comment from people from who don't really understand the issue or start identity politicking about their favorite team or home state. While those types are busy discerning their asshole from their brain, I'd prefer to have house clean so this cancer in the college football parts doesn't spread anymore. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Welcome to categorization. Rarely are things worked out as to what exactly goes where, but we generally do that after they are created, despite your wish to the contrary. As to your argument of all or nothing, we don't do that either. We create categories to organize existing articles as we go. If we need one for Fooians from Fooville, we create it, but it has little direct connection to whether we need one for Fooians from Footown or for Fooians from Foo City. Or, simply put, please follow the existing consensus of the Wikipedia community and use the CfD process so this can all be hashed out. On Wikipedia, we go with more voices, not less. Sometimes it can be a pain in the ass, but it is better than rule by fiat or dictatorship or oligarchy, benign as those rulers may think they are. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I need no introduction to categorization. I've been working on categories for quite some time. The college football coaches issue is a little different than people from town in terms of all or none. Because there are exactly X college football programs that have each had Y1, Y2, Y3, etc head coaches, every single one of whom has been accepted as notable and worthy of an article. You can't say that about people from towns. How many towns in the world are there even? Also, the cadre of categorization process Nazis is no less an oligarchy than any WikiProject might be. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you need no intro to categorization, then how can you possibly be surprised that a criteria regime was not hashed out before hand? That sort of thing rarely happens, and is not a requirement for creating categories. A good idea, but not required. And if you really think it is non-controversial 1) then why am I pushing you to take it to CfD 2) then it should be an easy thing to be taken care of at CfD and 3) why hide the discussion at one inherently invested wikiproject? The fact that you recognize it would be a bitch at CfD to deal with demonstrates that you understand it is not a non-controversial matter. As to Nazis, yes, the manifest themselves in many areas around Wikipedia, whether you call them Nazis or the Cabal or deletionists or the BLP police, they do indeed exist, which is even more of a reason to use the processes in place to keep them from later having ammunition to undue all your work. Lastly, apparently you missed my point with my analogy with the fooians, so here is one you might better relate to with the head coaches category: Every president of every college is considered notable, yet we do not have categories for each one by school. We have them for those that support having them in line with WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT. Specifically, we do not create categories with nothing in them nor do we create them where there is little opportunity for growth (as school that recently started a football team would have few if any current head coaches and would likely take quite some time to grow large enough to justify having a cat for their head coaches). But this does not impact whether we have them for other schools (slight caveat that if there is a recognized scheme in place we can do them for all, except where they are empty). Aboutmovies (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all. There's plenty of garbage execution all over Wikipedia, especially in sport topics where quasi-literate people get enthused enough to start editing. I don't know why you're pushing me so hard. Perhaps, it's because you're a process pedant with limited ability or conviction to think outside a set of rigid rules. I made a call about the best way to deal with a multi-dimensional mess...1) kill the obnoxious, transcluded categories, 2) do a little sweeping up of the mess shielded behind them for so long, 3) build some consensus at WikiProject College football with editors who deal with the categories regularly about how we move forward from here (discussion in process now), 4) go to CFD with the outcome of those discussions in hand if they necessitate category deletion or merging. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

First, as to "Perhaps, it's because you're a process pedant with limited ability", see WP:NPA, which I am sure you are aware of. Second, who gives a crap about your clean-up and removing transcluded categories. That's not what this is about. Third, thank you so much for making the decision for everyone, so glad that pesky and stupid WP:CONSENSUS didn't get in your way, and good thing it won't get in the way of the next editor who wants to undo all your work, and based on your precedence, can go right ahead, as that would obviously be the right way, at least according to them, and you couldn't really argue, and of course their edits wouldn't be controversial either. Good luck. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you came on to my talk page and asked me a question about why you were doing what your were doing, rhetorical as it may have been intended. And you I gave you my answer. Gimme a break with the NPA. As for this issue at hand, in the end, which is coming soon, one of two things is going to happen: 1) this is all going to hit CFD, which is looking likely or 2) the existing categories will be populated completely and properly for the first time by me and, perhaps, some other involved editors. I care about the cleanup and so do a lot of others. That's about the finished the product of a quality reference which millions of people use all the time, not the obscure, back-end processes that are the interest of a select few. Are we done? See you next at CFD. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fired up, are we?

"Also, the cadre of categorization process Nazis is no less an oligarchy than any WikiProject might be."

Stop it. You made me spit up my granola and yogurt I was laughing so hard. I waited six weeks for CfD to delete a single Florida Gators category that was a redundant intermediate level category that was created contrary to the manner in which every other sport was categorized. Six editors favored deletion; one, the creator of the category, opposed. It sat for six weeks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm here all week. And likely next too. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing stand-up, no doubt. I guess we now know the "J" really stands for "Jerry Seinfeld" Weiss. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More cursing than Jerry though. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Michigan Wolverines football team

2010 Michigan Wolverines football team has been nominated at WP:GAC by TomCat4680 (talk · contribs). Come by and give it a once over if you have a chance to make sure everything is in order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Harkema

Materialscientist (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brady Hoke

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Navbox conversions

I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I've stopped upgrading the FCS and lower-division coaches' navboxes. It was a nice break from my usual work but I've kinda gotten back into the WP:CBBALL swing again. I estimate I upgraded over 50 or 60 FCS navboxes, but that still leaves around 50 or 60 remaining. I wasn't sure if you thought I was still doing it, so this is to let you know that if any of you still want to work on them, there are more to be done. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and all your great work. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Coach_categories.3F_Head_coach_categories.3F_Who_shot_who_in_the_what_now.3F

I see no consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Coach_categories.3F_Head_coach_categories.3F_Who_shot_who_in_the_what_now.3F or elsewhere for your recent edits at Bump Elliott ([1]) and Bennie Oosterbaan ([2]).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just removing duplicate categories there. Cydebot added a second instance of Category:Michigan Wolverines football coaches to those articles and others after the head coach categories were eliminated per the CFD. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, BTW, on the head coach CfD. The last trace of our crazy category-creating friend has now been removed from WP CFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And good riddance! Thanks. We made some major headway in past few weeks cleaning up this corner of Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I know that have a little bit of knowledge when it comes to uploading historically fair use images (I see that you've been adding College Football HOF inductees' images to their articles). I have very little knowledge on this type of stuff, so I was wondering if you could do me a favor. Last night, I created Ralph Crosthwaite, a star basketball player at WKU in the 1950s. He died in 1999, and I was under the impression that the photograph I uploaded was fine to use, since (a) it was taken circa mid-1950s, and (b) the player is deceased. Within a couple hours of uploading it, however, it was tagged for speedy deletion. I don't know what to write or do in its fair use rationale to make it acceptable. Could you help me out? I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what you need to add is Template:Non-free use rationale. See File:Wes Fesler.jpg for an example. With that added and filled out, the Crosthwaite photo should be okay. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just added it, hopefully it works. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Thanks for the College football Barnstar! Glad someone else out there appreciates the time that goes into producing those articles. Next up is to get all of the Bama bowls to at least Start class and the List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games to FL. Roll Tide! Patriarca12 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Poaching

JW, I've been poaching on your Michigan Wolverines territory. As part of fulfilling my commitment to the CBB guys to get them to go along with the standardized coach navboxes, I've upgraded all of the Big Ten basketball coach navboxes. Notable by its absence was a separate navbox for the Michigan men's basketball coaches. It apparently existed at one point, but was replaced with an all-in-one program box, which was being used everywhere. I created a standardized navbox for the Michigan men's basketball coaches, and replaced the all-in-one program navboxes on the coaches' pages. I would be grateful if any Wolverine basketball fan editors go berserk if you would explain that the use of the all-in-one program navboxes should be restricted to team, season, game and rivalry pages, and not used on every article associated with the program, including coaches and players. It might be better received coming from Wikipedia's King Wolverine rather than a random Gator interloper. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Michigan basketball isn't really my specialty anyway and the title of King Wolverine should probably go to TonyTheTiger and/or Cbl62. I will certainly back you up on the navbox stuff. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the basketball coach navboxes for five of the six major conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-10, SEC) have now been upgraded. Once we finish enhancing the Division I basketball navboxes and purging the succession boxes, I suggest we give the NFL and NBA guys a nudge about upgrading their coach navboxes, too. The initial reception on the NFL talk page was generally favorable to the enhanced CFB navboxes and generally against succession boxes. I love it when a good plan comes together. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

CfR discussion

Could you weigh in here so that the process can move along more quickly? It can take a couple weeks if nobody chimes in. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Denard Robinson GA

Every few months I get around to thanking people for their efforts on various articles and I would like to thank you for helping out with Denard Robinson

This user helped promote Denard Robinson to good article status.

.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clark Shaughnessy

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for your effort to raise the quality of the Clark Shaughnessy article.

This user helped promote Clark Shaughnessy to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for doing a nice job cleaning. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

American football

Thank you for your explanation some time ago about the American Football template. I just added a Pennsylvania template to New York Majesty, but I did not know what to do about the American Football template for this women's pro football team, based, contrary to the name, in Reading, Pennsylvania. Can you help?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dthomsen8, anything related to the Lingerie Football League can be tagged with the WikiProject American football template. There are dedicated WikiProjects for the National Football League, the defunct American Football League, the Arena Football League, and college football. Articles about those subjects should be tagged with the templates for those respective WikiProjects. Articles related to other American football leagues or levels of play (e.g. high school) or articles about general American football concepts (e.g. touchdown), should be tagged with the WikiProject American football template. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:David M. Nelson.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:David M. Nelson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jayron32 05:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the image is that it isn't being used appropriately under Wikipedia rules, see WP:NFCC. Wikipedia may only accept copyright images under narrowly defined guidelines, and all images must be appropriately tagged so that they clearly indicate why the use of the copyright image qualifies as "fair use". This image has a tag which says that the justification fot the use is that the image itself is "transformative in nature" and that the image itself is the subject of "critical commentary". I see no such indication that this picture is transformative, nor where there is any discussion about the image itself in any references anywhere. That you note that somewhere, in another article, there is an image which needs to be deleted does not mean that this image gets a free ride. You are free to nominate that image for deletion as well. This image needs to be fixed. The easiest fix would be to correct the fair use tag so that it correctly describes which aspect of the fair use policy this image qualifies under. If it cannot be tagged correctly, it may be deleted. If it can be tagged correctly, that would be preferrable. But an image which isn't compliant to Wikipedia's fair use policies (see WP:NFCC has to go. Yes, this one image is not the only image in all of Wikipedias millions of articles which is not currently compliant. But that is hardly an excuse. --Jayron32 06:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, we are looking for a global solution that will satisfy the WP copyright patrol. Can you please look at File:Charlie Bachman.jpg, and tell us if the FUR documentation is acceptable as revised? If so, we will use it as a template to resolve your concerns. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Those tags look fine and appropriate. I'm pretty middle of the road when it comes to copyright stuff; as long as it is properly labeled and tagged (and the David Nelson pic IS properly labeled and tagged now) then its fine. Just make sure you cross your eyes and dot your tees correctly, that's all. --Jayron32 03:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Hollister

Glad to help. Haven't been able to confirm the Ole Miss part, but I'm assuming CFDW has it right. Unfortunately, my purchase of Chicago Tribune articles has expired, so I couldn't check the obit. Seeing him in the back row of the 1893 photo is quite striking -- he's so tiny compared to the guys next to him, I assumed he was a student manager or something, rather than a player. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Hollister didn't look like much of a football player. Not sure about the CFDW being correct here. I've been emailing David DeLassus regularly over the past few months with all sort of errors I've been unearthing (spelling, conflations of two guys into one profile, splits of one guy into two, etc). Jweiss11 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mick Dennehy ‎

Just a quick message to say thanks for cleaning up my article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirschnus (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again!

I was surprised to see the SEC schools so lacking in the head coaches lists. Ultimately, I would like to get all 12 up to FL just like the Big 12 coaches lists. BTW...Just finished Vanderbilt! Have a great evening! Patriarca12 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

thought

hi. the "place of birth from lead" rule keeps on flip-flopping (as the removal from lede is contrary to other encylopedias, and splits it from the relate "date of birth").--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DOB / DOD

Do your sources have the dates of birth and death for H. Lee Prather, which I just created? And, while I'm on the topic, any information regarding his playing career (if applicable)? Jrcla2 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jrcla2, I'm not finding much on Prather via a cursory web search. Most of the DOB/DODs that I've added I've pulled either from the NCAA database (http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch) or from obituaries and other articles found via Google news archive search (http://www.google.com/archivesearch). Jweiss11 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm that's alright, it was worth a shot. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep my out eye for info about him. While were on the topic of Prather, I have a couple formatting issues I'd like to bring up about the basketball head coaching record tables. First, shouldn't the seasons be expressed as YYYY-YY, not YYYY-YYYY to confirm with the naming convention in place for college basketball seasons (see Template:NCAA basketball seasons). Second, in the CBB Yearly Record Subheads, we should display the team fight name to match the convention in place for football record tables. Take a look at Phog Allen, which I recently did some work on. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the XXXX-XX formatting. When I created the article I was very tired and just put in XXXX-XXXX out of habit (because I'd been adding tenures to bball coaches' navboxes for weeks straight, my brain was still programmed to put all four digits). As for the team nickname, that was just an oversight. Again, I was tired, otherwise I'd have caught that. I've fixed both concerns, though. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Those formatting issues are ones I've seen in a lot of places. Given all the work you do across college football and college basketball, I just wanted to make sure we were synced up. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for W. H. Dague

An article that you have been involved in editing, W. H. Dague, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wolverines project?

Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Florida/Florida Gators subproject? Should we have a Wolverines project? I would start it, but I am already overseeing WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARDS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Word to the wise, gentlemen: the Florida Gators subproject was conceived and created by a non-Gator who set it up and promptly disappeared. Not sure what his goal was, but there are very few active participants and no active upkeep on the project page. IMHO, it was a mistake to set up a separate subproject apart from the main university WikiProject. Most university project participants are drawn by the particular college's sports teams, not by any widespread desire to work on the university's history or articles about its faculty. The subproject only serves to confuse the newbies who are searching for Wiki organization and guidance, with few attendant benefits. Be careful for what you wish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I have to agree with Dirtlawyer1 more or less on this one. I don't think a Wolverines project is a great idea. I think rather than creating new projects with narrower foci, we're better off leveraging the existing projects that already have some traction to bring consilience and coordination between topics. Much of the work the I've been doing, particularly on the coaching biographies, is in large part an effort to homogenize the formatting and style across different schools and ultimately across different sports and levels of play. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Category:WikiProject Universities, it seems like University of Michigan might want to start its own project. I would start it myself, but I am already running WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARD. Comment at Talk:University_of_Michigan#Should_University_of_Michigan_have_a_project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Coaching wins template

Nice job on the coaching wins template. There is no direct equivalent yet for softball. the list at National Fastpitch Coaches Association Hall of Fame is limited to HOF inductees. Time permitting, I'll create an equivalent wins list (probably 800 wins being the right threshhold) for college softball. There are probably some other team sports where such a list could be useful, though I'm not sure at this point. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Strikehold previously did a List of college men's lacrosse coaches by career wins. What do you think about adding it to the template? Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice find. Definitely belongs so I added it. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I created List of college softball coaches with 800 career wins which you can now add to the template as well. Cbl62 (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1997 Notre Dame at Michigan football ticket stub.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1997 Notre Dame at Michigan football ticket stub.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Summit League logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Summit League logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for Milwaukee Panthers football

I've reverted your removal of two categories from this article because WP:EPON states that an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category. cmadler (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Herbert McQuillan

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Herbert McQuillan, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.faqs.org/people-search/mcquillan-florida.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a mistake. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dell Morgan

Are the numbers in the coaching table for 1949 correct? A conference standing of 10th seems low after going undefeated in conference play. Thanks for your contributions to the article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. That was a typo. Texas Tech was the conference champ in 1949. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mike Donahue.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mike Donahue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MacMed^talk_stalk 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Samuel B. Newton/H. Thompson

First off, I see you've contributed a bit to this article, which is why I'm asking for your input on this. All University of Pennsylvania records state his name as "Samuel B. Newton", but I've don a little detective work and have found that his name was actually Sylvanus Blanchard Newton - see [3] - his obit says that he coached at UPenn and Lehigh, which matches up with the article. Should we move the article and change all the pages what link to it to "Sylvanus"? Also, I've found that H. Thompson is actually the same person as Samuel Huston Thompson - those 2 articles need to be merged (I think we should redirect Samuel Huston Thompson to H. Thompson, then rename it to either S. H. Thompson or Huston Thompson, but that's just me) What do you think? Connormah (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the work regarding Thompson.... what do you think in regards to Newton, as mentioned above? Connormah (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Connormah, thanks for looping me on in these guys. As you can see, I merged H. Thompson (American football) into Samuel Huston Thompson. Makes sense here to go with the more complete name and drop the qualifier, especially given that Thompson may be just a notable for his later work in law and government as for his football career. Let me take a closer look at Newton and get back to you about him. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again. Connormah (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Here's another instance where he's referred to as Sylvanus: [4] - perhaps "Samuel" was a nickname? Connormah (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a birth record I pulled up for him: (IIRC something from UPenn stated he was from Yarmouth, Maine) [5] and a genealogy file on him: [6] Connormah (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My best guess here is that Samuel was indeed a nickname. He's referred to as "Samuel" here in this 1908 article during his tenure as Williams coach: [7]. Nice work digging up all this stuff. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like "Silvanus" may be an alternate spelling also, searching "Silvanus Blanchard Newton" or "Silvanus B Newton" brings up some stuff also. Connormah (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice research again. But, yikes, what is the correct spelling of his name? And how come his gravestone says he died on April 4, 1932, not April 30? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird. Should probably go with April 30, though. Lots of conflicting info here... Connormah (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I've seen 3 variations of his birth year also, 1868, (birth certificate) 1869, (passport app) and 1872 (censuses). Connormah (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange also: his 1902 passport app says 1869, then 2 after say 1872. Connormah (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe that's why his NY Times obit simply said he was about 60 years old. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Good call with the 1868 date - that's probably the correct one. I've also pulled a photo from his 1919 passport registration, will upload. I'll also add a note for the alternate spellings. Meanwhile, don't know if you'd be able to help or not, I've hit a standstill in searching for info on H. B. Galbraith - I'm absolutely terrible at finding what the initials stand for. I'm also trying to locate a first name for Mr. Collier, not going to be easy if doable at all... Connormah (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly found Galbraith's initials may stand for "Holamer B Galbraith" [8], but I'm not sure because it says he coached the Carlisle Indian team [9]. Connormah (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Collier's initials are "H. T." - maybe related to H. T. Collier, I don't know. On second thought, both of their coaching years are 1899, so I'm skeptical that this is the same guy. Connormah (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

William McAvoy

In your resources, can you confirm that William McAvoy is the same person for all of the coaching navboxes on the article? I created that article about a year and a half ago, and during my basketball coaches' templates upgrades, I came across "W. J. McAvoy" and "William J. McAvoy" as the head coaches for Vermont and Drexel, respectively. It seems ridiculous (to me) to think they were different people, especially given the time frames. Can you (a) confirm these are the same people, and (b) expand his article at all? Much appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I just did a little cleanup and expansion on this one. Yes, this does all look like the same person to me. Looks like he also coached basketball at Lafayette and Haverford and baseball at Delaware. He seems to be listed as W.F. McAvoy and W.K. McAvoy as well in the NCAA database (http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch). Jweiss11 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Weird (re: middle initial). I'm going to update the appropriate navboxes though. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:George Levene.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:George Levene.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lloyd Carr.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Lloyd Carr.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Directional Michigan

JW, as one of the project leaders, I think you should weigh in on this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination). FYI, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Northern California Athletic Conference

Thank you so much for adding to the NCAC/Far West Conference page, it is both exciting and appropriated to see the logos! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepidsfsu (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lauren Spierer

The two versions of the article I had deleted were just public announcements of the disappearance. I have reviewed the content of the other revisions; I am of the opinion that it's too early to create an article about her disappearance. Her only claim of notability seems to be that she has been missing for a couple of days, and got some minor mentions in the news. (I have also reviewed the other articles about missing people you had pointed out. Each of them had been missing for a year or multiple years, and there's much more to be said about them than just that he/she's missing.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yale Bulldogs football

Jweiss -- You're more knowledgeable than I with respect to when to use endashes vs. dashes. When the Yale Bulldogs football article was created last year, you went through it and changed hyphens into endashes with diffs like this. Your changes reflect the normal style I've seen used in college football articles. Recently, another user changed all the endashes to what appear to be normal endashes at this diff. Can you confirm which is correct? Also, the same diff removed the Yale Bulldogs logo. I thought it was OK to use the school's log in articles about the school's football program. Thoughts on that? Cbl62 (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This last edit just replaced the HTML code for the endashes with the actual symbols. In terms of how the article renders, there is no apparent change. It's just a change on the back-end, so to speak. I've seen these sorts of edits elsewhere. I'm not if there is a policy on coding for endashes one way or another. As for the Yale Bulldogs logo, I restored the image and added a template at File:Yale Bulldogs Logo.svg which specifies usage for Yale Bulldogs football. I think that should solve the matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nile Kinnick.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nile Kinnick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Clint Frank.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clint Frank.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Larry Kelley.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Larry Kelley.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Don Coryell.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Don Coryell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gil Steinke.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gil Steinke.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thad Vann.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thad Vann.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Baseball years

When recording years for baseball pages and coaches, what is the correct way to record them since baseball is a spring sport? Coaches are hired in the summer or fall, but their games don't start until the spring of the following year. For example, if a coach was hired in the summer of 2002, but they didn't coach their first game until 2003, how should that appear in the articles? Thanks! -AllisonFoley (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Go by season of actual play. That's consistent with how things are done for football and baseball coaches. For the example above, tenure should be noted in infoboxes and nav boxes as "2003–XXXX". However, it may be worth mentioning in the body of the article the exact or approximate date of hire. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

NFL coach navbox

JW, I have "enhanced" the NFL head coach navboxes for the Bills, Cowboys, Giants and Redskins. That should give you a head start. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Already saw that and working on cleaning up. Eagles247 knocked out Philly too. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)