Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Score format in season article schedule tables

A discussion took place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League a couple months ago about the "proper format for scores". A user was trying to set a consistent format for how scores would be displayed; specifically, he/she had seen "some player articles that when it mentions a loss it lists it a (for example) 17-27 loss", believed this to be wrong, and wanted to make it be "winning score-losing score" across the board instead.

The consensus agreed that it should be "winning score-losing score", but some made it clear that they were against changing the format on season articles where the relevant team was the loser, especially in schedule tables. In fact, the format used in schedule tables on season articles was really only mentioned in four different comments, with two being in favor of "winning score-losing score" and two being in favor of "relevant team's score first", i.e. not a consensus on this topic. Regardless, several users began changing the format of scores in schedule tables on seemingly random season articles, and for some reason, they only did it in FBS college football articles and not on NFL articles, even though the discussion took place on the NFL's WikiProject talk page.

To get right to it, I'm writing this post to get everyone's opinions and to set a consistent format for how scores should be displayed in college football season article schedule tables. "Relevant team's score first" is the format I've seen for years on just about every single CFB season article I've come across, as well as just about any other season article for a sports team that uses a similar schedule table, whether it be an NBA team, MLB, NFL or NHL. There are thousands of season articles with this format in FBS CFB alone. It would take an incredible amount of time to change all of them, and would result in CFB articles having a different format than every other sports articles.

So, do you support using the "relevant team's score first" format for CFB season article schedule tables? Kobra98 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Even though I recently reverted edits you made, I only did it based on the previous discussion. I personally am in favor of using "relevant team's score first" (first I've seen it worded that way but makes total sense). I don't see any reason to change how it has been done for years on thousands of articles. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

In a schedule table, the score should be listed (taking an Alabama season article as an example) with Alabama's score first. However, this only applies to schedule tables. In box scores, the road team should be listed first, and in prose, the winning team should be listed first. I realise that this seems massively inconsistent, but it is logical. – Pee Jay 21:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What? Lizard (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What? – Pee Jay 22:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's oddly esoteric. Why can't the same format be used no matter the situation? Lizard (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support continued use of existing standard of 'School-Opponent' score format within CFB shedule tables on team articles. Most of the major portals use this convention, less ESPN from memory. How we ended up with these reverted WP:BOLD changes is unclear. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Procedural close - The original discussion about rogue edits within CFB by a lone editor evolved into a vote without a clean proposal from a change advocate. Multiple requests to produce a thorough review of media sites for comparisons were ignored, no implementation plan has been offered, no clear rationale has been presented for changing our 10 year consensus and documentation within the CFB Project, change would fork our CFB team articles from the identical and current 10-year NFL Project consensus negating an apparent goal of "consistency," and clearly this would be a disservice to both readers and good-faith editors who are accustomized to a decade of consistency within the documentation and consensus of both Projects. If specific editors want change, they need to clearly present both the problem and comprehensive solution in a coherent manner to justify undoing a decade of work under consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support for team–opponent score in everything, not just the schedule table. That is the more commonly used format, whether they win or lose. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- It really isn't. If my team lost, I wouldn't dream of saying "we lost 14-20", I'd say "we lost 20-14". Saying it the other way round just doesn't make sense. – Pee Jay 21:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment For what it's worth, the discussion on this on the NFL project took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 14#Score format. There was a unanimous agreement to list winning scores first. Lizard (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not true. You need to go back and read each comment. As I said, there were multiple people who were not in favor of changing the format on season articles, especially in schedule tables. That is why I made this post. The OP of that post was talking about "some player articles" he had seen, and he never got any more specific than that. Kobra98 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly, what was voted on was pretty vague. But formatting scores differently depending on the situation doesn't make sense to me. We can't expect editors to know of these arbitrary conventions, especially not IPs, who do the brunt of the work when it comes to tables and such. Lizard (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see how going against the format of every other sports' articles and spending an ungodly amount of time changing the format of the thousands of CFB season articles is a viable option. Kobra98 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The amount of time required is only "ungodly" if people keep reverting the progress that's already been made. In response to the consensus in the prior discussion, I had made the changes on the 2016 articles and was plugging away at prior years. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"I had made the changes on the 2016 articles" You missed at least 30+. And that's just one year, out of over 140 years. Kobra98 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The amount of time it takes to change is irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion should be to gain a consensus. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. I'm giving a reason that people should support my proposal, in order to gain a consensus. Anything related to the two proposals is obviously relevant to the discussion. Kobra98 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just saying the time it will take to change the existing format to a different format should be taken into account when making a decision. This discussion should choose the "right" solution, not the "easy" solution. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. If the consensus here feels that the right decision is to spend the time needed to change the thousands of articles to the new format, then that's what should happen. My point is that I believe there's absolutely no reason for this, and I fear that if the consensus is to change the format, it won't get done. I want everyone to know the long process ahead so that we don't just decide to change the format and then do it on just a hundred or so and leave thousands unchanged. Kobra98 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I honestly see this as a language variant-esque issue. It should be decided by those who do the majority of the content work on the article. Different sources present wins/losses and scores in different ways. There's no strong rationale for uniformity on this type of thing across all articles. I plan to keep doing what I'm doing in my Canadian football articles, at least, which is "player's team's score–other team's score". I would never dream of enforcing my opinion on anyone else for this, and I really can't see why anyone would want to force their opinion on me. Neither is wrong. As a serious question, why is this something we should care about? Especially when any time spent changing the articles of editors who prefer a different variant of listing scores could instead be spent on improving the articles of major Hall of Fame football players who have measly little stubs on Wikipedia? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a great reason for why we should care about this, other than that this all came about because of editors making mass edits on articles across WP College football. I opposed their edits and they claimed that they had had a discussion with a consensus that said they're right. I disagreed so I made this post. Another reason is that I'm obsessed with consistency. Kobra98 (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Kobra's proposal; support consensus reached in prior discussion. If we are striving to be an authoritative encyclopedia, it looks kinda "amateur hour" if some charts are done one way and others done another way. Crash Underride started a talk page discussion to allow us to achieve consistency, and a consensus was reached to have winning score first. That consensus is consistent with how ESPN formats its results tables (see here) and how most college football programs also format their results tables. See, e.g., (Oklahoma, Michigan, USC [click on 2016 season]). Cbl62 (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've said it many times but I will say it again. No, a consensus on the score format in schedule tables was NOT reached. The original post was referring to what the OP had seen on "some player articles". He did not specify season articles and/or schedule tables. The format used in season articles and/or schedule tables was only mentioned by about four people; two were in favor of leaving the format as is, two were in favor of changing the format. That is absolutely not a consensus. Kobra98 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, Kobra's assertion that his preferred format is used in every Wikipedia article across all sports is wrong. Wikipedia is a mixed bag on this -- thus the effort at conformity. Examples across Wikipedia using the "winning score first" include NFL (see 2010 Detroit Lions, 2009 Cleveland Browns, 2008 Buffalo Bills, 2007 Green Bay Packers, 2007 Chicago Bears, 2007 Philadelphia Eagles), NCAA football (2007-2008 Iowa), MLB (2010 Detroit Tigers, 2010 Los Angeles Dodgers), CFL (2010 Toronto Argonauts), MLS (see 2010 Toronto FC). Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I should not have used such definite wording. Every single Wikipedia sports article does not have the exact same format. That isn't my point though. My point is that the vast majority of season articles of any sport that uses a similar schedule table to CFB (so I'm not referring to MLS) uses the same format, "relevant team's score first". The fact that you're trying to prove me wrong and were only able to find 11 different articles that use the format you support proves my point. That is such a small, negligible amount that saying "Wikipedia is a mixed bag on this" is incredibly misleading. How can you compare 11 articles to tens of thousands? If I found you 11 articles that used the ESPN.com rankings for the schedule tables rather than the AP or Coaches', would you say that "Wikipedia is a mixed bag on this" and decide we need to have a discussion? Kobra98 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no. It's not that I was only able to find 11 such articles. There are many, many, many such articles using the "winning team" first format. Your assertion that the count is "11" vs. "tens of thousands" is ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It is truly a "mixed bag". Using just one NFL team as an example, here are 57 Chicago Bears yearly schedule charts using "winning team's score" first: 1943-1949, 1951-1964, 1966, 1968, 1970-1972, 1975-1976, 1978-1984, 1986-2001, 2003-2007, and 2009. Hundreds and hundreds of additional examples of the "mixed bag" are available if one cares to take a look. Cbl62 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A further review shows that the vast majority of the NFL team/season "Schedule" charts use the "winner first" format. Here is a non-exhaustive list of over 1,100 examples using the "winning team first" approach: 81 Giants (1926-1947, 1949, 1951-1963, 1965-1966, 1968-1980, 1983-1985, 1988, 1992-1999, 2002-2008), 79 Cardinals (1920-1943, 1945-1946, 1949, 1951-1966, 1968-1972, 1974, 1977, 1979-1995, 1997-2002, 2004-2009), 71 Lions (1930-1946, 1948-1951, 1953-1966, 1968-1970, 1973-1981, 1983-2000, 2003-2006, 2009-2010), 63 Redskins (1932-1941, 1943-1960, 1962-1966, 1968-1980, 1985-1986, 1988-1990, 1993-1998, 2000-2001, 2004-2007), 62 Packers (1921-1932, 1934-1943, 1945-1949, 1951-1958, 1960, 1964-1965, 1968-1969, 1972-1978, 1980-1982, 1988-1990, 1992-1995, 2005-2009), 60 Eagles (1933-1949, 1951-1959, 1961-1966, 1969-1984, 1986-1987, 1989-2003, 2005-2009), 58 Rams (1937-1944, 1946-1949, 1951-1961, 1963-1966, 1968, 1970-1978, 1980-1983, 1986-1988, 1990, 1992-1997, 1999-2002, 2005-2007), 57 Chicago Bears (listed above), 55 Jets (1960-1966, 1969-1977, 1979, 1981-1995, 1997-2009), 51 Browns (1946-1947, 1951-1963, 1966, 1968, 1971-1975, 1977-1995, 1999-2003, 2005-2009), 49 Chiefs (1961, 1964-1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974-1976, 1978-1984, 1986-1996, 1998-1999, 2001-2009), 48 Steelers (1941-1943, 1945-1949, 1952-1960, 1962-1965, 1970-1972, and 1979-2002), 40 Chargers (1960-1962, 1964-1966, 1968-1981, 1983-1993, 1995-1997, 1999, 2002-2004, 2007-2008), 38 Bills (1960-1966, 1968-1972, 1975-1979, 1981, 1983-1988, 1990, 1992, 1996-2000, 2002-2006, 2008-2009), 38 Raiders (1960-1962, 1964-1969, 1971-1974, 1977-1978, 1984-1986, 1988-2007), 36 Dolphins (1966, 1968-1971, 1973, 1976-1977, 1980-1997, 1999-2000, 2002-2007), 33 Saints (1969-1974, 1976-1979, 1981-1989, 1991-1997, 2000-2005, 2007), 33 49ers (1946-1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1971-1980, 1982, 2004, 2007), 31 Oilers/Titans (1961-1966, 1968-1971, 1974-1977, 1979, 1981-1994, 1996-1997), and 30 Cowboys (1961-1966, 1968, 1972-1976, 1978-1981, 1987-1991, 1998-2004, 2006, 2008), 25 Bengals (1968, 1979-1987, 1989-1992, 1996-2003, 2007-2009), 20 Falcons (1966, 1968-1972, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1987-1989, 1995, 1999, 2002-2003, 2007-2009, 15 Dodgers (1930-1944), 9 Yellow Jackets (1923-1931), 8 Independents (1920-1927), 7 Steam Roller (1925-1931), 6 Pros (1921-1927), 6 Red Jackets (1921-1924, 1929-1930), 4 Stapletons (1929-1932). Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Irrelevant (this is CFB, WP:OTHERSTUFF). 2) Do you find it odd that these NFL wiki example articles seem to stop around 2008 after the NFL project explicitly formalized "Team-Opponent" format within the schedule? 3) Since you're trying to change consensus, why does this (and the prior NFL discussion which didn't reach new consensus to change our existing consensus on the schedule treatment) omit a thorough review on national media websites for their schedule treatment on their equivalent team pages? -that would be one of my first actions if attempting to convince editors to change course on 10 years of consensus and documentation across two projects. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The premise of Kobra's argument was that every article in every sport uses his preferred format. I rebutted that with 11 examples. He then said 11 examples were trivial and that the overwhelming majority use his format. Accordingly, and to rebut his unsupported assertions, I have provided these examples. Can you please provide a link to the discussion where you claim that the the NFL project "explicitly formalized" your preferred approach? Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kobra98: It appears that you have selectively invited particular persons to participate in this discussion. See, e.g., your notices to PeeJay and DragonFury, both of whom participated in the prior discussion and both of whom you stated here that you believed supported your position. This type of selective notification to individuals you believe to be supporters of your position is seriously frowned upon. If people are to be invited, it should include all who participated in the earlier discussion. Your selective notices raise issues with respect to potentially violating WP:CANVAS/WP:VOTESTACK. Cbl62 (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Except I posted that same message on nine other user's talk pages. I didn't do it for "all who participated in the earlier discussion" because, as I've said time and time again, most of the people in the prior discussion weren't referring to the format in schedule tables, which is what this discussion is about. Kobra98 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Uh no. There were many in the prior proposal who supported the "winner first" concept, and you chose not to notify any of them that you had opened this discussion. Your decision to only notify those who you believed supported your position is a clear violation of policy. Cbl62 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can miss my point so many times. If you don't get what I'm saying, please ask for clarification rather than just ignoring my point, because I'm really trying to get this across.

Ok, here it is: the prior discussion that took place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League was NOT, I repeat, NOT specifically about schedule tables. The format used for schedule tables was only mentioned by four different users, with two being in favor of "winning score-losing score" and two being in favor of "relevant team's score first". I did not notify everyone in that discussion because there were very few who were talking about schedule tables, which is what this discussion is about. What exactly do you not get about this? Kobra98 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I "get" it very clearly. What you need to "get" is the letter and spirit of WP:VOTESTACK. It says that when you open a discussion to reconsider a prior debate, you should not (or, as you might say "NOT, I repeat, NOT") send invite notices only to the prior participants who supported your position. Instead, you should notify "all" sides on the issue. Here, you provided invite notices to the persons (PeeJay and Dragonfury) who, according to your own comments, supported your position. You did NOT give similar talk page notifications to those (e.g., x96lee15, CrashUnderride, Lizard, Dissident93, me, etc.) who advocated the "winning team first" approach. As for your suggestion that these other participants weren't talking about tables, the comments were broad and encompassing in support of the "winning team first" approach, and at least x96lee15, CrashUnderride and I expressly talked the tables, yet you did not give notices even to those three that you had opened a new discussion here. Your actions in this regard were a clear violation of WP:VOTESTACK. I'm not asking for any punitive actions to be taken, but it would be nice if, instead of angrily denying you did anything wrong, you simply "owned" your mistake and said something along the lines of, "Gee, I didn't realize that before. It won't happen again." Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just pinging everyone from the earlier discussion who hasn't commented here yet. @StarScream1007, DragonFury, Crash Underride, Sabbatino, TheCatalyst31, Dissident93, MisterCake, and Lincolning: You participated earlier at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_14#Score_format and are invited to add your opinion on the related topic here of score formate on team season articles. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also now left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Kobra's proposal; support consensus reached in prior discussion In American prose, you say, "Team A lost 24–14." This is used in reliable sources everywhere and I don't think can be argued. The same should apply to to tables. Tables are already using a "W" or "L" and color coding, so there is no need need to go away from how it is done in prose. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about article prose broadly, it's narrowly about the schedule table. Use of the 'College-Opponent' score format within the schedule table is not a proposal, it is our long-standing consensus format. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, agree that this isn't about article prose. I'm talking specifically about the schedule table too. It should match the prose because there is no reason to differ from that (especially since the rows are color coded and there is a "W"). The schedule table (and regular tables and infoboxes for that matter) should match prose whenever possible. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Kobra's proposal; support consensus reached in prior discussion Per my !vote previously at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_14#Score_format: "winning score listed first. It's how it usually listed in most sources." Consensus was quite clear before that it applied to all scores, even ones in tables. The first sentience of the proposal unconditionally states: "Can we make it clear to everyone that the proper format for scores, regardless of win or loss is the same?" That applied to tables in season articles as well.—Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment I mentioned this in the previous discussion, but it's even more relevant if we're talking about schedule tables for college football; what do we do about forfeits if we put the "winning" score first? The (forfeit) note next to the score helps, but I can still see people being confused as to whether a team initially lost but was given the win by forfeit, or if they actually scored more points but their opponent somehow forfeited anyway (even though I'm pretty sure that's not possible). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Kobra's proposal; support consensus reached in prior discussion, per above arguments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Why don't we all just check out what Pro Football Reference do? In their team-specific schedule listings (see here), they list the relevant team first, and they even include a "W", "L" or "T" for good measure! – Pee Jay 17:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Pro Football Reference table has columns for "team score" and "opponent score". It's always going to be listed in that order because they're separate columns. That doesn't apply here, IMO. Our schedule tables just have a single column that includes "w/l/t and scores". — X96lee15 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Opppose: The idea I have provided numerous times regarding tables/scorboxes being away team (left/top) / home team (right/bottom) as has been done by ESPN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, NFL Network and numerous others for years. As for being in prose, Oppose Kobra's proposal; support consensus reached in prior discussion. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: ESPN formats its results tables as "winning team first". See here. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: Yes, in a neutral article about a game, the road team would be listed first, but in articles with a bias toward a particular team, it's usually either that team's score that comes first or the winning score. – Pee Jay 18:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I'm referring to tables for things such as these tables, note how the game in Washington has Washington (home team) on the bottom and Dallas (visitors) on top. That is what I'm talking about. That and here. For single games, note how Pittsburgh was the home team for the game and are on the right (correct) side and Dallas, the away team is on the left. In the link you provided, if you're talking about the 2016 schedule table on the left, that includes "@14 WASH L 48-13", that's fine, as long as the proper format for the score is used, winning score-losing score. @PeeJay2K3: why should it? Look at any article from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, NFL.com, Fox Sports, etc. and you'll see that in an article written about the Dallas Cowboys (or any team for that matter) the scores are always written in prose as winning-losing. So, "articles with a bias toward a particular team" shouldn't mean squat, after all, don't we want consistency, uniformity, etc.? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I have watched the discussion evolve over the past few days and I'd like to weigh in here. In prose, no matter which article we are talking about, winning score should always come first. It's awkward to talk about a "10–20 loss" in prose or when speaking. But there's a utility in having relevant team score first in the schedule tables. That allows you to quickly scan up and down a team's schedule and see their relative offensive and defensive scoring performance easily. We don't read tables the same way we read prose. However, I do see that many reliable sources like ESPN and many other parts of Wikipedia like WP:NFL, use winning score first in such tables. A bit of history here. Back in 2009–10, I stubbed out all of the missing Michigan football articles. This was back when very few programs had such history established here on Wikipedia. At the time, I used winning score first in the schedule tables. I assume I did so because I observed that to be the prevailing standard at the time. However, since then, the prevailing standard shifted to relevant team score first. That is what we see in the vast majority of college football schedule tables. This appears to be the case for college basketball and other college sports as well. I don't think we should assume we have a consensus to switch college football schedule tables to winning score first. That should be determined by the outcome of this discussion. We should loop WP:CBB and other projects that cover American college sports in here as well to get a unified consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, box scores for specific games should list road team first. That it how is typically done in reliable sources and how we have typically done it here on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nailed it. And likely why this has been the long-standing consensus and documentation for a decade within both football projects. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Recap:

The NFL project had an inconclusive discussion in December 2016 about the format of the game scores broadly. Scores exist in both prose and schedule tables, with that discussion both referencing and omitting that important distinction in various comments.
The NFL project discussion did not review or reference the NFL project's existing documentation.
The NFL project discussion did not attempt to audit the major media portals (ESPN, Fox, CBS, and ~10 similar), local media (tv, newspaper), or official team/league sites to observe their treatment of the game scores displayed on a single team's schedule page (or schedule section).
The discussion outcome was no relevant NFL project documentation was changed, nor were the 2016 NFL team articles globally changed (which helps steer the new 2017 articles in my view) as no new consensus had emerged.
An editor later began to change the score format in schedules in historic CFB team articles from being CFB Project-conformant to non-conformant, then later began identical non-conformant edits to 2016 CFB articles while explicitly using that specific NFL Project's dicussion as justification in edit summaries
These CFB edits were made directly against the CFB Project's existing documentation and without any discussion or consensus to repeal our long-standing consensus.
A second editor noticed the WP:BOLD changes to our 2016 CFB articles and globally reverted those 2016 articles to comply with our CFB Project consensus.
The second editor also immediately notified the first editor on their Talk and initiated this CFB Project discussion. Kudos!
That user Talk page discussion is now as long and contentious as this discussion, likely because no new NFL consensus was ever reached or implemented.
This specific dicussion has now been overtly mispresented as being about supporting or rejecting the OP's desire to change consensus, when in fact they (inartfully in spots) initiated a good-faith discussion about non-conforming edits, made by a lone editor, which used invalid rationale, and were against our long-standing CFB Project consensus.
This overt misrepresentation led to apparent confusion in some good-faith CFB Project editors within this discussion that we were vetting a proposal from the OP to revert established consensus, which is clearly false.
No one has initated any proposal to change the CFB Project's long-standing consensus treatment of schedules.
Clearly it would have been ideal if such a proposal to change our consensus was initiated by an editor wishing to change our consensus, who supported their idea with a wide analysis and links, articulated their view of some presumed defect in our long-standing consensus, and articulated how we would change the litany of articles created in compliance with our consensus. That didn't occur, likely because there is currently only a lone editor using the NFL Project as rationale to replace long-standing CFB Project consensus with their preferred format.

Prose

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style lightly touches on this (see "a 51–30 win" section and relevant text)
The AP Stylebook certainly doesn't control, but does inform. Here is a link to a rewrite, as I cannot provide you with the book. "In this tutorial you will learn tips on how to write a AP styled sports story by learning when to capitalize, how to write out numbers and scores, and when to use abbreviations." & "put a hyphen between scores (winning score goes first)."
Another AP example here "The Giants defeated the Lions 14-7 (No comma between the team and the score)."
In the NFL discussion, most folks had an intuitive sense of "Winning-Losing" (or "Higher-Lower" if you like) being "correct" in prose, as most professional North American sport journalists are trained in and will conform to AP style.
A single news anecdote may not be fully helpful, but here is NY Times story in context the NFL (not one team). The section is about Dak Presscot of the Cowboys and reads "The game was a return to form for Prescott, who threw two interceptions in last week’s 10-7 loss to the Giants." (rather than "last week's 7-10 loss"). This aligns with our gut instinct for "Winning-Losing" format in prose because that's how journalist are generally trained to write and the format you've spent years reading.
I think we have near-unanimity here, though the NFL discussion didn't touch on MOS or editorial norms such as AP.

Data tables are not Prose

MOS has a distinct page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables which is great context that data grids are distinct from prose.

If an editor was inclined to initiate a proposal to change our existing 10-year consensus within both projects for our "Team-Opponent" format in the schedule tables, a good place to start is familiarizing yourself with our Project documentation, seeing what other media sites do, then initiating an overt discussion about specifically changing the schedule tables standards via each Project's Talk pages, and explain the need for other editors change their conformant edits to your new desired standard. None of that has occurred. So we are left with good-faith editors stepping into a void to resolve an unarticulated problem informed with their personal biases and preferences, rather than by our existing consensus and documentation.

While explicitly WP:AGF, personally I would be mortified and apologetic to this Project with this fact pattern of using a flimsy discussion from another Project Talk page as the stated rationale to initiate rounds of disruptive edits explicitly against ten years of our consensus and documentation, without first initiating any discussion and establishing a new consensus within the CFB Project, and then updating the CFB Project documentation accordlingly. This behavior is simply bizarre and explains why good-faith editors are voting against this "proposal" (it is not) and citing existing prior "consensus" (there is none) from a months-old NFL Project dicussion which failed to create new consensus, change our 2016 NFL articles, or modify our relevant NFL Project documentation. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: Notwithstanding your rambling, angry, and unduly confrontational wall of words, and setting aside your personal attacks ("mortified", "bizarre", "overtly misrepresented"), I respectfully disagree. Several experienced and respected editors, including Bagumba, x96lee14 and me, read the prior consensus the same way. Moreover, your desire to read "near-unanimity" into the split vote above (ignoring votes cast by Bagumba, x96lee15, cbl62, and Dissident 93) raises questions about either your good faith or arithmetic capacity. Crash Underride began the discussion to bring some uniformity to the subject. I never felt strongly as to which format we choose. The prior discussion closed in favor of "winning team first", and I began the highly labor-intensive effort of conforming articles to that consensus. If the new discussion again closes in favor of "winning team first", I will firmly commit within the next 30 days to conform all NFL articles to reflect that consensus. If the new discussion closes the other way, will you do the same, i.e., firmly commit to change within the next 30 days the 1,100 NFL "winning team first" schedule tables (which I have now listed) to reflect the new consensus??? Consistency is my goal, and if you are willing to make that commitment, I will gladly change my vote. Well? Cbl62 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll quote myself here as to what I would support: "{{Ping|Cbl62}} I'm referring to tables for things such as these tables, note how the game in Washington has Washington (home team) on the bottom and Dallas (visitors) on top. That is what I'm talking about. That and here. For single games, note how Pittsburgh was the home team for the game and are on the right (correct) side and Dallas, the away team is on the left. In the link you provided, if you're talking about the 2016 schedule table on the left, that includes "@14 WASH L 48-13", that's fine, as long as the proper format for the score is used, winning score-losing score. {{Ping|PeeJay2K3}} why should it? Look at any article from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, NFL.com, Fox Sports, etc. and you'll see that in an article written about the Dallas Cowboys (or any team for that matter) the scores are always written in prose as winning-losing. So, "articles with a bias toward a particular team" shouldn't mean squat, after all, don't we want consistency, uniformity, etc.?"

However to say that "no new NFL consensus was reached" is a bit of an overstatement, a consensus was reached, for prose. Also: "The NFL project discussion did not attempt to audit the major media portals (ESPN, Fox, CBS, and ~10 similar), local media (tv, newspaper), or official team/league sites to observe their treatment of the game scores displayed on a single team's schedule page (or schedule section)." isn't important, because as I stated before, "'articles with a bias toward a particular team' shouldn't (meant to say 'should') mean squat, after all, don't we want consistency, uniformity, etc.?" All articles are supposed to be neutral towards the subject matter, therefore they the score format should follow consensus. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 08:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: In that discussion, you also had the following exchange with x96lee15. X96lee15 said: "I guess these are the tables I'm referencing: 2015 UCF Knights football team#Schedule. These hurt me to look at." You replied: "Yeah, those are in the improper format. . . . " That is what this discussion is about. Do you still hold the view you expressed there? Cbl62 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cbl62: thanks for linking that, I had to go and look. What I meant when I said "improper format" was the score being listed as 7–31, etc. As I've said, I'm 100% against the the losing score, ever, coming before the winning score. The table itself is fine. It's the score format that I had and still have a problem with in that table. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying. Cbl62 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see why you would want uniformity in style between prose and tabulated data, but it doesn't always work that way. If you're trying to present a statistical record, surely it makes sense to give the reader information in as intelligible a manner as possible. To me, that means presenting the schedule table slightly differently; as Jweiss11 pointed out earlier, there is a utility in having the relevant team's score come first consistently, as then you can see at-a-glance how their offense/defense performed from game to game without having to mentally process whether they won or were playing at home. Simply having their score first is useful and logically sensible. Obviously I would never suggest this for prose, or for an article that deals with multiple teams (such as 2016–17 NFL playoffs), but for articles about a specific team, it makes perfect sense to present the info in this way. If it helps, you could do what I've done at 2016–17 Manchester United F.C. season and have a column header that specifically indicates that the relevant team's score comes first, or put it in a note at the bottom of the table. You say that a bias towards a particular team violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, but I have to disagree; in an article on the New England Patriots, it isn't non-neutral to list their score first – the article is about that team after all – and any suggestion that such a practice violates WP:NPOV could almost be taken to mean that you disagree with having articles on specific teams on the whole. – Pee Jay 10:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: at least ping me next time. lol. Actually, no, it doesn't mean I disagree with having articles on specific teams on the whole. That logical fallacy is asinine if you ask me, not to mention you were putting words into my mouth. How many times do I have to say it, winning-losing. Away left / top, home bottom / right. If each tale has the same format and lists the teams name with the score, there, done no problem. People would see the teams' name with the score right there so it's not hard to find. You make it sound like they'd have to search all over the section / article for the score. How are these so horrible? They're exactly what I'm talking about, as for these, note how the games are colored, green for wins and red for losses, with the score in the proper winning-losing format. Yeah, it's really hard to know how the team did.</sarcsm> lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 11:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for misrepresenting you. However, you have again failed to grasp the argument. Sure, it's not rocket science to do some minor mental gymnastics and rearrange the scoreline in your head, but if we can present the scoreline in such a way that the team in question always has their own score on the left in tables and the opponent on the right, then readers can see at a glance how they did over the course of a few games or even the whole season. The colours are nice, but I'm not talking about simply being able to see which team won, but also the margin of victory and how the number of points scored by the team vs their opponents varied throughout the season. Also, you don't necessarily need to have the name of the team next to the scoreline, since we're talking about articles about a specific team, therefore it can be assumed that we're talking about the same subject throughout; the only team name that is needed in the table is the name of the opponent. Not sure why you're suggesting I think the {{Americanfootballbox}} template is so bad – I actually think it's a very useful way of displaying details about individual games; we're talking about the overall schedule tables, the ones that display all 17 weeks of the NFL season (sorry, I'm not particularly familiar with college football). – Pee Jay 12:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: again, ping me bro! lol. Look, I'm getting sick and tired of this debate. Here's how it's done for literally every sport in America, winning-losing, why the hell would tables be any different? They wouldn't and shouldn't. The readers aren't stupid, you're acting like it takes the power of a nuclear bomb to look, literally from one side of a dash to another. I'm sorry, but you're entire argument sucks. You're acting like the readers are dumb little kids that need everything made easier for them because they're too stupid to be able to look — that far away. It's not hard. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 12:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And you're making it sound like I'm trying to coddle people, which is patently absurd. All I'm saying is that I think you're wrong about prose and tables needing to be the same. I completely understand that in prose the winning team is listed first; if that's the same in tables, then I'll WP:DROPTHESTICK, but literally the first website I looked at just now (Fox Sports) lists the score of the relevant team first. They may do it differently on pages that aren't about a specific team, but you can't say it's done a particular way across the board when I've just proven that's not the case. – Pee Jay 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and CBS Sports does the same as Fox. – Pee Jay 13:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And just to show you I'm not cherry-picking my sources, ESPN and NBC list the winning score first. Just to point out, I'm not claiming that anything is settled when it clearly isn't, I'm just trying to show you that the relevant-team-first method is not as out-of-the-ordinary as you appear to think. – Pee Jay 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One more for good measure: Sports Illustrated doesn't go for either the relevant team or the winning team, they list the home team's score first! – Pee Jay 13:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment on websites listing scores on a team's schedule IMO, we shouldn't put a lot of weight in the ordering of scores web sites use on teams' schedules. Those pages are just pulling the information from a database. Because of that, it's easier for the programmer to list "relevant score" first. If the programmer didn't have a requirement on how to display them or wasn't a sports fan, then it's more than likely to just have "relevant score" first. The manager in charge of the page realizes it probably should be "winning score" first, but chooses to spend their engineers' time elsewhere. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you're qualified to say what's easier when it comes to programming or even what goes through the mind of a website editor when making decisions like this. How do you know what method they're using to determine how to display scorelines? Obviously each one has a different method or they'd all be the same. – Pee Jay 13:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Sports Illustrated one is truly bizarre and suggests that some of these sites may not be giving much serious though to their score formats. For this reason, I tend to agree with X96lee15 that we shouldn't put undue weight on how such web sites format their charts. Cbl62 (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I take your point, but if we're not using other sources to decide how we should format our pages, we're essentially getting into a great, big WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I would say that the format on Sports Illustrated's website is only indicative of the amount of thought they've put in, and even then it may not even indicate that. As things stand, other sources are the best indicator we have. I'm not saying we should just go with what most websites do, I'm simply pointing out that some sites put the relevant team's score first on their specific schedule page, and that seems like the most statistically useful format and hence what we should do here. – Pee Jay 14:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: our conversation is over. Not because we disagree, but because you refuse to ping me as I have repeatedly requested. It's a clear lack of civility and respect. So, our discussion is at a close. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 13:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation to ping you. If you want to leave the discussion, that's your prerogative. I've been nothing but civil to you, but your refusal to acknowledge my argument indicates a definite lack of reciprocity in this matter. – Pee Jay 13:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: this is my last comment to you, you are under no obligation, but it's call common courtesy, which you show a complete lack of when replying to me and failing to ping me as well. And honestly, I couldn't give a sh*t about your argument because of that reason alone. So, after much deliberation, User:Cbl62, regarding Jay and his whining, I couldn't careless about those stupid tables. I'll happily discuss this topic with anyone else. As I said, I refuse to speak with Jay because of the lack of common courtesy he has shown with his repeatedly failure to ping me, upon multiple requests. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be so precious. If I choose not to ping you, that's my choice. It's nothing to do with courtesy, just follow the discussion. – Pee Jay 14:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: Crash, my stated view is that MOS already required 'Winner-Loser' in NFL (and all) prose. I didn't perceive your observation re 'Loser-Winner' problems in NFL player page prose to be controversial and the ensuing NFL Project's discussion aligned with MOS. So in my view there wasn't new consensus re NFL prose, just editors in clear agreement with MOS who didn't overtly reference it. Apologies if that was unclear in context to my comments re the CFB schedule tables. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cbl62: You cannot use this CFB Project discussion as rationale to implement systemic changes to the NFL Project against its consensus and documentation. The original edits against our CFB Project consensus were justified via a reference to a vague NFL Project Talk dicussion and remains the root cause of this CFB fiasco. Let's not repeat that mistake.

Please also retract/strike your "offer" to modify every NFL article within 30 days based on this CFB Project discussion. In my view, you could help unwind this mess by implementing the NFL Project's 'Team-Opponent' current and long-standing consensus within any NFL team article schedules which are not currently Project-compliant over the next 30 days as you have conditionally offered. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The NFL and CFB projects use identical "Schedule" tables. The NFL project has been notified of this discussion (and, of course, the original discussion began there), which is intended to resolve an inconsistency common to both. My offer was to do the "hard work" of implementing the change if the discussion closes in favor of "winner first". Nothing nefarious about my offer to do the "hard work". Please pay attention a little more closely before making baseless accusations, ok, my friend? Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Cbl62, the NFL and CFB projects use identical "Schedule" tables? What did you mean there? The NFL project doesn't even had a template to standard them and there are a number of differences between the standard data contained in the two. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Interim recap. The discussion has gotten really wordy and contentious and has sometimes veered off point, so to bring the disussion back into focus, we are debating the score format in team "Schedule" tables, and here's an interim recap of where the opinions stand:

Six users favoring "subject team first" in Schedule tables: Kobra98, Bsuorangecrush, PeeJay, UW Dawgs, Corkythehornetfan, Jweiss11
Five users favoring "winning team first" in Schedule tables: Cbl62, X96lee15, Bagumba, Dissident93, Crash Underride
One user favoring flexible approach allowing individual editors to choose: Rob13
Two users commenting without voting one way or other (at least as far as I could tell): Lizard, TheCatalyst31

Hopefully, we can get some input from additional users, keep the discussion civil, tip this debate one way or the other, and achieve a true consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Originally, I was opposed to team-opponent listing, but I think it is clearer this way. Other sites, including sportsreference.com use it this way. For clarity, I think this is the simplest way to go. In prose, never that way, but schedules yes. Lincolning (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: I noted my reasoning below, but wanted to make sure my vote was here as well. I use Pro Football Reference and similar sites and it's much easier to understand this way. I wouldn't be opposed to separating the scores into two columns either. Theknightswhosay (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What did we decide here? Jweiss made a compelling argument for relevant team first in tables, so I'm inclined to agree with that. I still don't have an opinion on how it should be in prose. Lizard (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

After 12 days, the vote is 7 to 5 in favor of Kobra's proposal. Would have been nice to see greater input, and a greater margin than two votes, but our project is based on majority rule. So be it. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

8 to 5. The six you listed above plus Lincolning and Lizard. Kobra98 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear (emphasis mine), "Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." (WP:VOTE). I don't believe a consensus has been reached in this case. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I like how you left out "most" in your bold. That "most" is there for a reason because some discussions need to go by the majority. What more do you want out of this discussion? People disagree, there's nothing wrong with that. It's time to move on. Kobra98 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

We certainly don't have a consensus to change anything, so I think we have to revert back to the existing standard, which is relevant team first in the schedule tables. I do lean toward relevant team first per the utility I pointed out above. But, I'd be more in favor of establishing some sort of Wikipedia-wide consistency on the matter, whichever way that goes. As for prose, I think we do have a strong consensus backed by style guidelines that winning score should always precede the losing score, no matter the subject or context of the article. On that matter, cumulative season scores discussed in prose should probably also follow the same rule. Thoughts? See 1931 Santa Barbara State Roadrunners football team for an example of this. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If this were an AFD, it would be closed as "no consensus". I don't believe in this case that such a small majority of votes (with so few votes cast) qualify as a consensus. Personally, I think since there isn't a consensus, both styles should be allowed. I guess precedence goes to whatever style was first used in an article. Per MOS:VAR, "Edit-warring over styles is never acceptable. If the existing style of an article is problematic, discuss it at the article’s talkpage or if necessary at the MOS talkpage.. I don't believe either style is problematic in this case. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that the template documentation puts "higher score first" and has since this template and its documentation was created (Template:CFB Schedule Entry/doc#Example 2). I don't see any other documentation specifying otherwise. We probably should have been doing that all along. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion and believe the subject team's score should go first. If I'm looking down the column of scores and see 23-7 (in a loss) and then 17-14 (in a win), for instance, my first thought is that the subject team scored 23 in the first game and 17 in the second game. It's awkward to have to mentally reverse the order. For clarity, I would agree that in prose, one should write "23-7 win" or "23-7 loss". A chart is a different conversation in my mind though. Theknightswhosay (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Divisional tie-breakers and conference championship games

There are a lot of edits and reversions concerning divisional championships of teams that do not make the championship game. For instance, Alabama technically won the SEC West in 2013 along with Auburn when Auburn dramatically beat Alabama by returning a field goal attempt as time expired to win the division (to tie in record and break the tie). Another example was 10 years before that when Ole Miss technically won the SEC West, although LSU won the BCS that year and beat Ole Miss on the way there (Ole Miss has never played in an SEC Championship Game). Anyway, I think it should at least be mentioned for clarity when a team is credited with a divisional win that such a team did not actually play in the championship game. Theknightswhosay (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense - if two teams have identical records, and one beats the other, then the winning team of the two has the tie-broken, better, record - and is therefore the divisional champ. Auburn won the west in '13 by virtue of having won the tie-breaker with Alabama. Ole Miss didn't "technically" win the west - they explicitly lost the tie-breaker game with LSU, and therefore lost any claim to a co-championship of the west with LSU.

Why this is an issue is beyond me - there's one champ of divisions and conferences, determined by tie-breaking games. The team with an identical record should *not* be referred to as a "co-champion".

JBrenn (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a common misconception. The tiebreaker is to decide which team will represent the division in the conference championship game, not to decide who wins the division.

"there's one champ of divisions and conferences, determined by tie-breaking games" As far as the FBS, excluding the Big 12 in 2016, I'm not sure any conference or division has ever worked like this. If two or more teams have the same divisional or conference record, they're tied.

SEC: http://www.secsports.com/article/11145479/sec-divisional-tie-breaker

Big Ten: http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/archive/081011aaa.html

Pac-12: http://pac-12.com/article/2014/11/06/pac-12-football-championship-game-tiebreaker-explanation

None of these say that the tiebreakers are to decide the champ; rather, they all explicitly state that it's to decide the representative. Kobra98 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This is correct, as silly as it is. Lizard (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This is probably a conference by conference thing technically, but at least all of the FBS conferences appear to recognize tied division champs. I can't tell you how many times I have to edit Nick Saban's page to restore Alabama's 2013 co-championship (as silly as it might be). Jweiss11 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd actually consider division championships to be infobox highlight cruft, even for coaches. Lizard (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

They are in the infoboxes for coaches by standard. That could be discussed if you think it's overkill. The division championships also apply to the head coaching record tables and, potentially, the prose of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Section headings in team season articles

The vast majority of season articles that have been expanded with game-by-game details have the relevant section titled either "Game summaries" or "Game notes". In an effort to bring some uniformity to these articles, a few weeks ago I discussed with BU Rob13 the idea of having a bot run through all of the team season articles and replace all instances of "Game notes" with "Game summaries". I think "Game summaries" is preferable because the word "notes" suggests something about a footnote or addendum, and these sections contain main body content of their articles. Would anyone have an objection to changing all instances of "Game notes" to "Game summaries"? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm with ya. Summaries just sounds better, more encyclopedic. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes do that. Lizard (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: looks like we have support and no objections. Can you move forward with this when you have a chance? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Can you provide me with the category that all team season articles are in? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Rob, it's all the sub-categories of Category:College football seasons by team. We want to look for all section headers titled "Game notes", "Game Notes", and "Game Summaries" and replace them with "Game summaries. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll do this semi-auto, likely during the weekend. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:, will you have a chance to do this in the near future? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Working on it now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

IFAF World Cup roster navboxes

I have nominated three IFAF World Championship roster navboxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A ton of minor college football awards navboxes at TfD

In an attempt to reduce our ever-expanding navbox cruft, I've placed 14 minor college football awards navboxes at TfD. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 15. Lizard (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

L'il help?

Was updating Template:Northwestern Eagles football coach navbox and the new coach is "Matt Moore." I have no idea how you guys DAB when their are multiples with the same name. Here is a link about his hiring. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Matt Moore (American football coach) I'd imagine. Lizard (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rikster2: See Bill Walsh (American football coach) (although this should arguably be the primary topic). Lizard (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks Rikster2 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lizard, I'd support that move of Bill Walsh (American football coach) to a primary topic. Perhaps you want to initiate that? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't tried yet is because my two previous attempts to rename an American football subject to the primary topic—Jim Taylor (American football) and Bruce Matthews (American football)—didn't go as planned. I'm not convinced Bill Walsh has a better chance than those two. Lizard (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like most if not all of the "oppose" voters are British. There is a segment of British Wikipedians who have a lot of trouble understanding that topics that aren't at all prevalent in the U.K. are huge in the US. Next time one gives you guff you should suggest that Bobby Moore should be a DAB page because there are too many people of that name, as was argued in the Jim Taylor case. I'd give it a shot and argue it out. Rikster2 (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies in which members of this WikiProject maybe interested in. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Update to Template:CFB Yearly Record

I don't have any idea how to do this, but can we update the yearly record template found on head coaches' pages? My problem with it is the BCS bowl part. Even though the BCS has been done for four years, the Bowl Alliance for 20, and the Bowl Coalition for 23, it's still shown on these templates.

Example: Tom Herman (American football)#Head coaching record

Tom Herman of Texas has only been a head coach since 2015, yet the symbol next to the Peach Bowl on his yearly record table says that it "indicates Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, BCS, or CFP / New Years' Six bowl". Herman is never going to coach a team in a Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, or BCS bowl.

It's the same for old coaches too. Tom Osborne never had the opportunity to coach in a BCS or CFP/New Years' Six bowl. John Blake never had the opportunity to coach in a Bowl Coalition or CFP/New Years' Six bowl. Is there anyway we can adjust this template so that only the systems that were in place when a particular coach was coaching are shown? Kobra98 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kobra98: Maybe. You'd probably be better served asking the smart people who normally deal with template editing. Lizard (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And who are those people? Kobra98 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Frietjes is probably your best bet. Lizard (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Kobra98, this is certainly doable, but how exactly would you want this to work? Four separate indicators for 1) Bowl Coalition, 2) Bowl Alliance, 3) BCS, and 4) CFP / New Years' Six bowl? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11, Lizard the Wizard, Kobra98, the problem is that currently |bcs=no means hide all bowl footnotes. this is a bad name for the parameter. instead it should be |bowls=no. I added some tracking. If we change this parameter from |bcs=no to |bowls=no, then going forward we have two options, (1) as Jweiss11 suggests with four different parameters, or (2) have it automatic based on some date range, like |year_start= and |year_end=. of course, this would be in addition to the ability to entirely turn it off with just |bowls=no. Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I vote option 2. Kobra98 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse - out of business

I tried again this morning to access the College Football Data Warehouse web site. There is now a notice from Network Solutions stating that "cfbdatawarehouse.com expired on 03/24/2017 and is pending renewal or deletion." Accordingly, this projects numerous links to the site would now appear to be dead links. Ugh. Cbl62 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We're long overdue for an alternative. Lizard (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for alternatives: SR/College Football covers most of the things for which we have traditionally used CFDW. For the last couple of years, I've been using SR/College Football whenever possible. In most of the instances that are not covered by SR/College Football, I recommend using media guides, which are available on-line for most FBS programs. A third resource is the "ESPN College Football Encyclopedia"; I purchased a hard copy myself a couple years ago, and they are available for just $3.99 (shipping included) on-line. See here. Another good research for Big Ten programs is ESPN's Big Ten Football Encyclopedia which can be purchased even cheaper. See here. While it's not one I have, ESPN's Southeastern Conference Football Encyclopedia can be purchased for the low, low sum of only $3.35 (shipping included). See here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My only gripe with ESPN's College Football Encyclopedia is its claim that the North Texas Mean Green was named in honor of Mean Joe Greene, which is almost certainly false. Perhaps that's the only error in the book, I don't know. But it's enough to make me question the reliability of the rest of the book. Lizard (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to use webarchive. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is the usage of automated links to CFDW in Template:CFBCR. Unless the template can be programmed to automatically link to an old version of the site using webarchive, the template itself should probably be 86'd and removed from the hundreds of articles that currently use it. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a website that is very comprehensive dating back to 1945, and also indicates who is a conference opponent.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems the College Football Data Warehouse is indeed out of business for good. Therefore Template:CFBCR should be deleted. There's also an associated Wikidata element. I don't know much about Wikidata, but perhaps that should be deleted as well? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathon. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Sports"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hampden–Sydney vs. Randolph–Macon rivalry

there is a mismatch in the rivalry series table in Hampden–Sydney vs. Randolph–Macon rivalry and the series record in the infobox. does anyone know of a source for the head-to-head results for these two teams? Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:CFBCR

I have nominated Template:CFBCR for deletion. It provided link to the now-defunct College Football Data Warehouse. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

current NFL player sections

What do we think of these types of generally unsourced, dated sections?

Beyond the existing issues of sourcing and updating, it seems like WP:RECENTISM and possibly UNDUE to callout ~15 players currently in the midst of their 3-year NFL career while the article context is the full ~100 year history of the football program including ~2,000 lettermen.

Any change should have no impact to similar player sections of college/Pro/CFL HoF players, PotY recipients, All-Americans, Heisman vote recipients, etc which are well-established and generally well-cited. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No opinion on whether or not these sections belong, but it's relatively easy to find sources listing schools' alumni in the NFL. Clemson, Florida State, Texas. I don't know how up-to-date it is, but ESPN.com has a list of current NFL players by college. Besides the obvious issue of being highly dynamic, I don't have a problem with these sections. Lizard (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read - this user may affect WP:CFB next!

Everyone in this WikiProject needs to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Djln categories' creation and his use of HotCat immediately. User:djln is ruining the college basketball WikiProject and I have no doubt WP:CFB is on his radar. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sun Belt "rivalries"

Y'all User:Supermathguy68 has been placing edits such as this in several SBC articles, linking "rivalry" to pages without linking a page for the "rivalry" (there isn't one for the "rivalry".) Is this standard formatting? Also, JohnInDC has noticed some of his edits such as this. I honestly believe this guy wants to help, (and I know linking him pings him.) However, I think general discussion could be helpful.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed all those others and hoped that someone might raise it here (busy day!) - thanks. I agree, I think discussion is likely to sort things out nicely. JohnInDC (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

JohnInDC, no. That field should only be used if there is an article for the "rivalry" in question, which means that the rivalry itself is generally notable enough to warrant its own article. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, we did have a page for that "rivalry" and it was AfDed. But yes, agree with Jweiss. Lizard (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

JW I think DC agreed that the editor's edits are non-standard, and that by saying "no" that we will have legs to stand on when telling this editor well this.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this edit [1] speaks for itself. What is it about the south where everybody thinks every game among conference foes is a "rivalry?"UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What? You're telling me Tulane and UCF aren't rivals?? Lizard (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have been more clear with my comment – what I meant by, discussion will sort it out, was that the editor in question would understand after a while that he is not going about it the right way! JohnInDC (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Archive 19/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject College football.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject College football, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudos to User:Ostealthy

@Ostealthy: In the last three months, this user has been cranking out valuable new content (almost a thousand edits) including completing historic annual rankings pages (e.g., 1978 NCAA Division I-A football rankings) and season/team articles on Boston College, Syracuse, Michigan State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Wyoming, Colorado State, BYU, Dartmouth, Fordham, Pitt, Villanova, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Holy Cross, New Mexico, and Southern Miss. Thanks for your efforts! Should you have any questions about college football articles, feel free to post a note here. There are lots of editors with shared interests who will likely be able to help. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

bowl content in team article and list of article

Looking for thoughts on standardization of our bowl game content, re team articles and their stand-alone bowl game articles. Currently there are three main cases:

Summary content and a full bowl results table in the team article (Auburn Tigers football#Bowl games), without a corresponding "List of" article
Bowl game content and results tables in BOTH the team article (Air Force Falcons football#Bowl games) and the "List of" article (List of Air Force Falcons bowl games)
Summary content in the team article (Wyoming Cowboys football#Bowl history) and summary + results table in the "List of" article (List of Wyoming Cowboys bowl games)

There are ~50 articles in Category:Lists of college bowl games by team implying general support for the "List of" articles. Assuming the team has played in some reasonable number of bowl games to justify creation of the "List of" article, some version of the third case seems the best for main article space and avoiding table duplication. Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Third case is definitely best, assuming the team has played in a decent amount of bowls. Those tables can take up a lot of real-estate, there's no reason to have them in multiple places. Lizard (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Lizard here. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus for grouping coaching navboxes in the below discussions. There is also a rough consensus for grouping them by tenures and highlights. As a procedural matter, this consensus should be considered local to the articles covered by this Wikiproject. This conclusion shouldn't be considered binding on other Wikiproject articles by mere reference below. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I posted about this in a year ago (and had posted it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball as well with the discussion held there by another user's choice), a certain user (Jweiss11) has decided that there is no consensus (which is clearly wrong.) I had posted the discussion at the College Basketball WikiProject an hour after the College football post. That user decided to hold the discussion there. The post read:

Something needs to be done with navigation boxes like in the William McAvoy article. There is simply way too many to not be grouped together. Personally, I'd like to see them grouped like in this diff. No color is needed since the coaches are at various schools. I don't care if you want to leave the default name Links to related articles as the title or something like Name coaching positions, etc. This article is another example.

During the discussionUsers had three options:

Group the navboxes all together;
Group the navboxes separately;
do not group the navboxes at all; or
a different option.

Out of the participants (Me, @Jweiss11, Sphilbrick, Bagumba, Rikster2, UCO2009bluejay, Lizard the Wizard, MisterCake, Jrcla2, and Littlekelv:), the consensus was clear (for those who !voted) – group them all together (5–1). Jrcla2 expressed he didn't "feel strongly about this but we may as well just lump everything together so keep pages cleaner." Jweiss expressed, and the user who keeps going against consensus, he's in favor of "Leaving all positional navboxes ungrouped and putting all championships, awards, and honors navboxes in one collapsed grouping." Something Rikster2 said – and I happen to agree with – is "I just fail to see why coach tenure navboxes are necessarily more important than others and am tired of the overloaded navboxes of the Larry Brown's and Mysterious Walker's of the world. At the end of the day, coach tenures should be in the infobox anyway so it isn't like the information is being hidden - it is still available on quick scan." After the consensus, edits were made to reflect it, but Jweiss keeps reverting. I'm tired of it and would like others to jump in to voice their opinions. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, this discussion effects all sports WikiProjects in North America. The consensus gathered at the end of the RFC will effect articles in those notified (mentioned below). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the discussion. Once you have an opinion, please record it in the Survey section below. If you've recorded it in this section, please add another into the survey section. Thanks.

Group them but under two separate sub-groupings: "Coaching navboxes" and "Awards and honors" Jrcla2 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Group them - But I agree with Jrcla above - one group for coaching/administrative positions (because there are AD boxes too) and "awards and honors" Rikster2 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

We need to have this discussion in a way that it covers at least all American college sports, MLB, NBA, NFL, CFL. Otherwise it cannot be consistent. We also need to determine exact language of the coaching/administrative position grouping and a rule for when it is invoked, i.e minimum number of navboxes needed to invoke it. Also, what about QB navboxes, e.g. Jim Harbaugh? Do we have one grouping for all positions held? Finally, I'm happy to explain why I think coaching/administrative position navboxes are more important that championship or award / honors navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects NBA, Baseball, NFL, CFL, Sports, and College basketball have been notified. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the consensus we need to build is one that explicitly governs all those projects / subject areas. It should be clarified that the discussion / RFC applies to all North American sports tenure navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's great if other multiple projects choose to be consistent. However, it is not necessary. Otherwise, we wouldn't be excluding NHL here. Barring a joint consensus, there was already a clear one for college basketball at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_6#Navigation_boxes_in_coaches_articles.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If consistency were that important, football wouldn't have something like four different infoboxes going. As for starting quarterback templates, my first suggestion would be that you guy evaluate if they are necessary - I personally think they are overkill but it's not my call. If kept, I think they should be grouped with awards and a more encompassing name for the group should be created (opening day starter templates for baseball are similar). Last, I think there already is a rule (perhaps it is informal, but we could make it more firm) that four navboxes or more should be nested. I think this is still a good number, though 4 navboxes could become two instead of one if we use separate groupings. Rikster2 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Group them all together (Same as my !vote from previous discussion) This is clean, and simplest to implement. I'm not sold on idea of needing overhead of two groupings (but it would be better than doing nothing at all).—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Rikster, consistency is that important. If you want to merge some of those football infoboxes, go for it. As long as the quarterback navboxes exist, they need to be integrated into this new navbox grouping solution. If you think they should be deleted, go for it. Bagumba, the reason I've excluded the NHL here is that coach navboxes doesn't exist for the NHL. They have succession boxes instead. There are a couple coach navboxes for college hockey; see Category:American college ice hockey coach navigational boxes. Moreover, WikiProject Ice Hockey has historically be antagonistic toward collaborating with related WikiProjects and merging their standards. There may have been a consensus for college basketball, but it was inherently flawed because no one addressed the problem of cases where college basketball coach navboxes exist along side other coach navboxes, which is a vast portion of all cases, given the number of college basketball coaches who coached in the NBA or coached other college sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not my place to tell the football project(s) how to handle their business. I have, however, been someone who has pushed for (and done a lot of the conversion work) for infobox integration for basketball and fought "starting point guard" navboxes when they came up. There will be no push back about NBA and college coach navboxes being nested - separating them outside a nest isn't something our project feels strongly about. Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging regular editors in these topics areas for comment: @Pvmoutside:, @X96lee15:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Paulmcdonald:, @UCO2009bluejay:, @JohnInDC:, @Ejgreen77:, @WikiOriginal-9:, @MisterCake:, @UW Dawgs:, @Bsuorangecrush:, @Yankees10:, @Eagles247:, @Dissident93:, @Cbl62:.

Comment – We need a final consensus before we start discussing names, etc. Once we have a consensus, then we can worry about it. Until then, let's just wait. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please record your !vote below. Thanks.

Group them, but group them separately from "awards and honors." Lizard (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Group em together Bot summoned per Corkythehornetfan. And a separte heading for Survey and Listed Discussion should be implemented. L3X1 (distant write) 16:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Group them, but group them separately from "awards and honors." Rikster2 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: if consensus moves in favor of separate grouping for 1) tenure navboxes and 2) championships/awards/honors navboxes, we are going to have to figure out how exactly that it works, i.e. at what number of navboxes is the grouping invoked and how does the naming scheme work. For example, in the case of Tuss McLaughry, the five tenure navboxes would be grouped and then the one award navbox would be left ungrouped? Similarly, if consensus moves in favor of one grouping for all the navboxes, we need to figure out the naming for that and how things are ordered within the new grouping. We must figure out all those details before anyone runs off and implements something. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always just done it based on judgement. If it looks like a lot of navboxes, I group them. Lizard (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not going to fly. We need objective rules. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Then I say group them once they hit 4. Four coaching gigs would be grouped, three "awards and honors" would be ungrouped, etc. And I think we should also either decide what constitutes "awards and honors," or start naming that group something else. Because I wouldn't consider "Chicago Bears 1992 draft selection" to be an award nor an honor yet these navboxes get thrown in with that group. Lizard (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we need a better name for this "awards and honors" grouping. Things like Template:NFL passing touchdown leaders aren't really an award or an honor either. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss, let's just determine consensus then determine the guidelines (if there is a change) before enacting anything. That's always worked in the past and I have no doubt we can figure it out this time. Rikster2 (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Group them all together Personally don't think it's worth having two {{Navboxes}} groupings—just sort them within the single navbox grouping—but anything is better than current practice of not collapsing at all.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Group them, in the way Jrcla2 suggested. That appears to be the most WP:Common sense approach. While a profusion of infoboxes are clearly unhelpful, it's equally clear (to experienced editors/readers, anyway) that a humongous, monolithic infobox that is excessively dense and unorganized is also "reader-hateful". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Just making sure you're aware we're discussing navboxes, not infoboxes. Lizard (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I did get confused (trying to do too many RfC in multiple windows after a bit of a wikibreak), but the exact same principle applies. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You might have been confused by {{Navboxes}}, which merely creates a collapsible container for multiple navboxes; it does not merge them into a monolithic one, per se.—Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I confused myself about one thing, not everything. Not everyone agrees that's a good approach. A huge pileup of navboxes at the end of the article provides very little actual utility, and collapse-boxing it doesn't fix that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Results, further discussion

Bagumba, Lizard the Wizard, Jweiss11, Jrcla2, Rikster2, L3X1, and others: I've waited 7 days since the RFC, so now it's time to move on. It looks like the result is to group them separately. Now let's talk about how we are going to label them. In my personal opinion, the following are my suggestions for naming conventions, but I am open to anything.

Separately – Career tenures (group 1), Career highlights (group 2)
Separately – Administrative, coaching, and playing careers (group 1), Administrative, coaching, and player highlights (group 2)

For the second (2) option, we would only include the group the awards/honors/highlights were in (i.e. if they have player & coaching awards, we'd leave out Administrative). Thoughts? If after one (1) week no one has commented, then I will go ahead and will go ahead and start grouping with the two options above. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I still maintain to group them inside a single {{Navboxes}}. Less overhead, can still be sorted as we see fit, and avoids coming up with some new cryptic header for each grouping.—Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bagumba: either way, we are going to need a label to be consistent throughout the articles. If we group them all together, do we just leave the automatic label "Links to related articles", for do we use a different label. This is what this section is about. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep it simple. The default of "Link to related articles" is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Separately – Career tenures (group 1), Career highlights (group 2) Looks ok. L3X1 (distant write) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Separately – Career tenures (group 1), Career highlights (group 2) is fine (though I don't oppose grouping together if that is majority view). Things like draft pick templates and starting QB templates can qualify as "highlights." Rikster2 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Bagumba; had a change of heart. Otherwise the two section names suggested are fine with me. Lizard (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Thank you all for the responses. It would be really nice if Jweiss11, who is the main critic here, would give his opinion. I just don't want reverts to start when the outcome is applied. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Corky, you know my opinion is that we keep the status quo with the tenure navboxes ungrouped, but it surely looks like consensus is for a grouping of some sort. As for which way we group them, I'm not sure I have a preference. I just want to be sure that whatever it is, all the permutations are considered and all the details are hammered before anyone goes and deploys anything. Consistency is the key here. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11, Bagumba, Rikster2, Cbl62, and Lizard the Wizard: and others:

It looks like from those who have commented above for a final survey, we have a majority of grouping together (3 to 2; make it 4 if you count me, 5 if you count Rikster2's side note) and we keep the default title Links to related articles. Is it safe to implement this now? I think we've had all the discussion that all are willing to participate in. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Corky, I think the consensus is indeed for the navboxes altogether in one grouping, but have we decided how the navboxes will be ordered within that one grouping? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, but honestly I don't think we'll get much participation. I'm willing to work with you on this... how do you suppose we order it? We could go off of the minority above (option 1)? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tenures then highlights seems fine. That's the way it currently is, no? So the only work is to just lump it all inside a {{Navboxes}}.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, tenures then highlights. Lizard (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It's much simpler to group them all together and continue to order them the way they have always been ordered then to completely re-order them and have deal with those who will still want to order them the way they currently are. I think the main concern for the ordering above if we were going to group them into 2 separate navboxes. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: I'd really appreciate it if you would start discussing in a conversation where you ask a question. I'm pretty sure at this point we have a consensus but God knows down the road you'll say we won't. It's getting really annoying when you don't participate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Corky, I've acknowledge the new consensus, although I maintain my dissenting opinion. Steve Spurrier is a good example of the prevailing standard. Tenure navboxes come first and are ordered chronologically. This is followed by a grouping wherein championships are placed first, in chronological order. This is followed by all awards/honors/highlights navboxes, including draft pick navboxes, in chronological order. I'd recommend we keep the same ordering. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maps on college football season articles

User:Jhn31 has added maps to a number of college football season articles, like 1950 college football season, to depict the locations of participating teams. Jhn31, User:Lizard the Wizard, and I have discussed this a bit on Jhn31's talk page here. What are everyone's thoughts about these maps? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For a little background, I was inspired by similar maps on international soccer, basketball, hockey pages (for example 2016–17 Premier League, 2016–17 Russian Premier League, 2017 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, etc.). Those leagues don't have the same alignments from year to year, unlike American pro sports, so the map is a quick visual way to show who participated that year. I found that similar to college football. The map quickly shows who was in what conference each year, thanks to the color coding, which conveys the information a lot more efficiently than the standings tables. The only drawback is the map has to be pretty big to spread out enough to fit all the teams, but I don't think it's too wide - at least the maps have a section to themselves, unlike in this example here. Jhn31 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I may be in the minority but I support these maps. I believe that maps indicating where these teams are illustrates the geographic scope of college football. However, I think placement of these maps should be worked out. Where it is now isn't that objectionable but I'm not fully sure either. In reference to the discussion on his page, I wonder if there is a list of who participated in the University Division of college football in a given year, not necessarily based upon a site with questionable arbitrarily declares a major school (the fact that you had that discussion indicates it is iffy).UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Support, but where's Hawaii? Kobra98 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are arrows pointing to Hawaii, keep in mind the program was D-II until 1974.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I oppose these maps. These season articles are generally in bad shape and these maps aren't helping. Keep in mind that prior to 1956, the NCAA had no divisions. All teams, even little guys like Tufts, essentially played together with the big boys. An article like 1950 college football season, as named and defined, covers all these teams and conferences. There are some websites that make some sort of determination about who was a "major" team when, but I'm not sure that any of those are reliable/encyclopedic or historically accurate. The team count in the infobox of a lot of these articles is sourced to http://www.jhowell.net. Who is James Howell? It appears he's some guy who likes college football. Anyway, this all creates a real problem for the maps because we'd have several hundred data points on them. Even in recent years, when we have a clear, defined set of teams in question, I don't find these maps particularly useful. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Support/Defer - The basics of teams and leagues remain in ongoing flux with conflicting sourcing. Thematically, there is no fundamental issue with inclusion of maps for any year, but would prefer to see us further along to avoid disputes and map removal upon status change involving new discovery around particular teams. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with what Jweiss said. I also think that a national map with more than 120 schools is just too busy to be useful. On the other hand, such maps might be useful for "conference season" articles where the geography is more discrete. E.g., 1932 Southern Conference football season, 1955 Big Ten Conference football season. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – too much of a cluster, especially if they in the NCAA season articles. I wouldn't be opposed to what Cbl62 said for conference seasons... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(Support if not clear from earlier context). I think these are a great visual representation of how realignment changes the conference lineups, especially the impact geography has. You get an immediate idea of the geographic footprint of each conference — you get to see all the MAC schools close together, or how spread out CUSA and the mid-1990s WAC are. You see how dramatically West Virginia is separated from the rest of the Big 12, or South Florida from the old Big East, etc. There's just a lot of insight that a map shows that you can't pick up from a standings table. I suppose it was my mistake for putting so many of these maps out there without discussing it first and finding a consensus, but honestly with the established precedent in other sports, it didn't occur to me that some people may not like them. Would any of these calm some above concerns?

Making the text a little smaller to reduce clutter (I don't really think they're all that cluttered, no overlapping text or anything, but I guess that's subjective.)
Making the map a little wider for the same
Using a more cropped basemap to cut down on the clutter? (I don't know if one exists, but there is probably 100 px on each edge of unused space.)
Or maybe limiting the maps to only 1956 (or 1978) and later, so that we have a clearly defined set of teams?

I'm open to any ideas to make them better and more acceptable to the community. Jhn31 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

oppose, doesn't add much and significantly increases render/load times and the size of the wikitext. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose them in their current form. 120+ locations is just way too much for any map. Perhaps we can find a way to make maps on these pages work, but this isn't it. Lizard (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

What if ... we removed the writing from the maps, but kept the colored dots, but hovering over the dot showed the name of the team, and clicking on the dot sent to the team's season article? This would allow the maps to become a little smaller too. Jhn31 (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Jhn31, I just noticed this last proposal of yours. I don't think that makes things much better. Again, these articles are generally in very poor shape and the maps are making things worse. Can we nuke the maps? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to move forward with deleting these maps. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Woah, a 5-4 vote is a consensus? And are you also going to be removing similar maps from all of the international soccer and hockey season pages that these maps are based on??? I think you overstepped a lot here — maybe these maps didn't do much for you, but they added a lot to visually-oriented people. Jhn31 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted back the 2017 article at least for now. I really don't want to start an edit war, but I strongly object to these being taken down without having reached any reasonable consensus among the editors here, especially when other sports' season pages have established that the maps ARE appropriate. I am of course open to tweaking the maps to make them meet a larger approval, but I do not agree with just eliminating them altogether.Jhn31 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Lack of consensus would revert back to the status quo before your additions. How many data points do those soccer and hockey maps have? Can you link to examples. Again, these maps are terrible graphically, unnecessary, and ill-defined for certain years. Do you want to improve these season articles? If so, I can direct you to several months worth of needed work. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I see your soccer examples above. 20 data points on map that takes up less than half of the page seems reasonable. 100-plus data points on a full page-width map is a blight. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion. I think the maps are a really good visual reference to where all the conferences are located, and you acted unilaterally, rather than by consensus, in removing them. Jhn31 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You acted unilaterally when you plastered eyesores on top-importance articles reeling from neglect. I restored order, reasonably supported by others above. At worst we have a no-consensus, which reverts to the status quo before your additions. Time to move on and actually improve the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Or it reverts to status quo before your subtractions. Those maps were up there for weeks — it's not like they were just added yesterday. It's totally fine that you Wikipedia:JDL, but the maps are a good visual reference, and you can't just declare that they're an "eyesore" or a "disorder" and have it count for everyone. My equally valid opinion says they're an appropriate graphical way to show how the conferences were aligned in a particular year. Very few people are going to be able to visualize the conference alignments just with the standings lists, but with the maps, many people (at least people who are visually- or geographically-oriented) will be able to. Jhn31 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

They were up for weeks so that we could have this discussion. Take a quick gander at 1950 college football season. The team links in the lead and body don't even point to the right places. Would you like to improve this article? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"There are other improvements needed to articles" isn't really relevant to whether the maps are a good visual reference to people or not. That's just deflection. I think we are going to have to call on the previous commenters to give their opinion on the unilateral removal of all of the maps: Cbl62, Frietjes, Kobra98, Lizard the Wizard, UCO2009bluejay, UW Dawgs, etc.: Thoughts? A lot of the objection was not to the maps per se, but because the wayback years didn't have an objective, inarguable system of "major" and "non-major" teams. I could agree to having maps starting in 1956 or 1978 to sidestep the issue. Jhn31 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a side note. But I wanted to make the point that your editing priorities here are strikingly perverse. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty dramatic to say I'm "perverse" for adding a map onto a sports season page (a standard thing to do on sports season pages on Wikipedia). Jhn31 (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I still say jamming 120+ points onto a map isn't viable. Lizard (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We had the discussion, and the consensus is that maps with 120+ data points are not viable. They should now be removed. If Jhn31 wants to experiment with conference maps, as suggested above, that would be a better approach. Cbl62 (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What Wikipedia rule says that a 5-4 vote is a consensus? (Answer: There isn't one. Wikipedia:Consensus) Especially when much of the "anti" sentiment was based on not having a reliable source for the maps from the distant past, and not to the maps themselves? If the maps didn't go back further than 1956, the "anti" side might not have not its razorthinnest of slim majorities that it got. Also, what is the arbitrary limit of how many data points can be on a map? The larger the map is, the more it can reasonably hold. Jhn31 (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Jweiss11 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You proposed removing maps which had been up for weeks. Despite the lack of consensus (you previously claimed there was consensus to remove but not apparently acknowledge that there was not), you removed the maps because you Wikipedia:JDL. Now that we agree that there was no consensus, we must revert to the status quo of having the informative maps. In the interest of assuaging the primary concern with the maps, I propose only having them go back to 1956. Jhn31 (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jhn31: You are characterizing the outcome in a way that is more favorable to your position than it actually is. Five participants clearly and unequivocally opposed. Only one (you) unequivocally supported. Three pf the "supports" were equivocal (indeed, one was "support/defer") and expressed some concerns. After you pinged everyone again yesterday, nobody other than you is speaking up in support of the maps. It is now time to remove these maps and move on. You should consider the suggestion for more limited conference maps, which would be more manageable and helpful. Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, remove these maps. 100+ data points is flat-out ridiculous. I agree with Cbl62 that these could be useful on conference season articles where we would have >20 items, but not at the national level. The sheer volume of data points makes it unworkable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

unplayed years in Cal and Stanford navboxes

@AL2896 and Corkythehornetfan:

Both Cal (1906–1914) and Stanford (1906–1918) dropped football for rugby during these ranges. It's a big deal to them, with annual and summary rugby results called out in their modern football media guides. There is now contentious editing and reverting regarding how to present these multi-year gaps in their navboxes (Cal and Stanford). I believe our consensus to date is to grey-out individual years, but that's typically been done for single or two missed seasons instead of a prolonged range. In the case of ranges of unplayed years, do we want to grey-out either each individual season, or as a range using a start and end season? UW Dawgs (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Grey-out as a range, as opposed to listing every single year. Lizard (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree we should blank out as a range, but not have 1904, 1905, 1915 as the IP alleges. I understand prior consensus was to blank out each year, but it is unnecessary to do that if more than 2 seasons were missed. In those cases propose we "move the rugby into lore sections.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already been bold and replaced the individual years with a range about a month ago in all NCAA Division I navboxes. The main reason was because some navboxes were getting way too big and space waa needing you be saved. As to date, AL 2896 had been the only critic, and even the user who doesn't like change in the WikiProject (Jweiss) had never reverted. I figured if Jweiss hasn't reverted, it must be O.K. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As usual, I don't really care what we do here, as long as we're consistent about doing it across the board. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Others needed

Does someone want to step in at Talk:Florida State Seminoles football#FSU Bowl game Streak.? It doesn't look like they'll come up with a consensus and the full protection ends in a couple of days. Someone who doesn't really have an interest in FSU would be good so that the IP can't say everyone commenting is bias. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Everybody has bias. That's why we operate on consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll join the fun. Lizard (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please join the conversation...

JohnInDC and I are currently in a discussion with AnneMorgan88 where she is not accepting anyone's opinions but hers. We need your help on building a consensus at Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies#Official name... It is the same issue we dealt with at Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns#characterization of the non WP:COMMONNAME(s). Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I was meaning to do this. The discussion has gone kind of circular. The main point of disagreement is whether the appellation "NIU Huskies" is the school's "official" name for its athletic teams, or rather, a preferred brand identity. The consensus will determine the wording of a parenthetical that would appear on ten or so pages re individual Northern Illinois athletics teams. JohnInDC (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bob Stoops

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bob Stoops. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Charles Bates

Was woondering if anyone can determine whether Charles Bates is still living? The non-free rationale for the infobox photo claims he is dead, but I cannot find anything to verify that per WP:BDP. I've tried to do a little bit of cleanup, but there's not a lot of online sources about him. One source I did find mentions that he played defensive end for the Chicago Bears, but there's noting about that in the article and I can't find anything online about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Season article campaign

We are now well into the third year of the College football season article campaign with more than 6,000 new articles having been created since 2015. For the Power Five conferences, we now have articles for every season for every team in the Big Ten and Pac 12. For the SEC, every team is complete except for Ole Miss and South Carolina. The Big 12 still has 6 teams (Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, and West Virginia) in need of articles, and the ACC has 7 teams (Boston College, Ga. Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, NC State, Syracuse, and Virginia) in need. It would be great to see full coverage of the Power Five team/seasons by the end of 2017. If you are so inclined, please adopt a program to complete. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My main focus is DII Champions but, I have been slowly working on Okie State, but I want to make sure that each article I make at least has a schedule table.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox NCAA football school

All - I have updated the infobox just a tad bit. I have removed |AthlDirectorDisp =, |AthlDirectorLink =, |HeadCoachDisplay =, and |HeadCoachLink = and replaced them with |AthleticDirector = and |HeadCoach =. If you have any other suggestions on what should be updated, I'll be glad to discuss. There are a few other fields like the above (Stadium & Conference + others) that I think need to be condensed down to one field, as well, but I'll let others decide on that. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Templates "College athlete recruit..."

Several times I have stumbled over articles containing the the "College athlete recruit..." templates Template:College_athlete_recruit_start, Template:College_athlete_recruit_entry, and Template:College_athlete_recruit_end, see e.g. Cam Newton#High school career, and every time I thought to myself "what on earth do the authors want to tell me with this template?" I believe that those templates are not self-explanatory and that they do not contain enough information such that someone like me, who doesn't know much about college sports, could understand them. I have tried to understand their meaning and I have added several suggestions and questions to the template talk pages:

Until now, my suggestions have found no comments. I'm a little afraid to be bold and do the suggested changes myself because, as I said here and on the talk pages, I just don't know if I did not completely misunderstand something. So, it would be very nice if the college sports experts from this Wiki project could take a look at my suggestions on the talk pages.

And while I'm at it, I have a heretical question to ask. As I said I'm not sure if I have understood the meaning of the templates but I have come to believe that the templates refer to the article College recruiting and especially to the last entry "Star ratings - ..." in its last list "Terminology". My question now is this: Does a topic which only fills a single small paragraph in a single article justify such an elaborate template structure? Spike (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Navigation boxes in coaching articles... addition

@Jweiss11, Bagumba, Lizard the Wizard, Rikster2, UCO2009bluejay, SMcCandlish, Jrcla2, Cbl62, and L3X1: pinging anyone who participated in the discussion:

After the discussion was closed, a couple of us discussed one more thing at User talk:Jweiss11#Do we go ahead? – leave the current team/conference template out or group them. We had decided to leave the current team/conference template outside of the grouping; however, Rikster2 has said "no". Since he disagrees with this, the consensus at the main discussion on this page is to group them all together. However, the current conference template is being left outside of the grouping per Rikster2. It just looks stupid outside of the box and we need to be going with the latest consensus – grouping all navboxes together. I don't think it is really necessary to have another full discussion on this (or at least I don't want to with the very little participation at the last one), but instead just cast your !vote below.

Group, including the conference template Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Leave "current coaches of X conference" un-nested - we have very few templates that are temporary. In the professional ranks we have current roster templates, these should be outside the nest. Likewise, templates like Template:Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball coach navbox only sit on articles while a coach is the current coach at an institution - ergo, it is also a "current" template. A historical navbox of the coach's current team (such as Template:Louisville Cardinals men's basketball coach navbox) is NOT a current (and therefore temporary) navbox, it is a historical one. To place it outside the nest/at the top you are pulling it out of chronological order. Plus, it theoretically never comes off the article. Therefore, that template should be nested with any other coach tenure navboxes. It feels like "un-nesting" current roster and current conference navboxes is a legitimate bright line on what to nest and when. Rikster2 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why "current" navboxes are more important than "historical" ones. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Because they are those most likely to be referenced. This is especially true of current roster templates.Rikster2 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Rikster, how do you know they are most likely to be referenced? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's separate current roster templates from "current coaches of" or "current quarterbacks of" active templates. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference in page views of active players and coaches over similar retired coaches and players. This is because their current "job" is what is in the news, and events (a great game, an arrest, a controversial tweet) drives page views. For pro players and coaches, the members of their current team is the most important affiliation they have. Unfortunately, Wikipedia analytics are not strong enough for me to prove that, but it is common sense. I can live with "current" templates like "current coaches" being nested, but am vehemently opposed to nesting active roster templates - and would like these to be addressed specifically in this conversation. These mirror the navbox coloring so they look good and are heavily used. For a pro coach (like Steve Kerr), I personally think the "current coaches of" template is a companion to the active roster template, but can at least understand why people might not like these aesthetically for college coaches who don't have an active roster template to go with it. Rikster2 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Group all Per Corky, But you shouldn't say it looks stupid that cheapens a rather valid argument. However, I agree it is visibly unpleasant IMO.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - there are a lot of things I think are/look stupid on Wikipedia but I live with it because my personal view is not consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I din't say it looks stupid Corky did and I objected to that word; I think it looks out of place. Besides the asthetics are the reason for this discussion.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Leave all dynamic navboxes ungrouped which includes any "Current x of y" navboxes. I agree with Rikster that navboxes that are expected to be removed/added from articles periodically should be kept separate from historic ones, which would be expected to remain on an article forever. I thought this was standard practice, is it not? Lizard (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Surface current coaching/tenure templates, ala Nick Saban where current Alabama HC and SEC Head Coaches float above ~19 collapsed "Links to related articles" navboxes of historical relevance. Explicitly collapse COTY and similar awards, even if the most recent recipient. Current "tenure" being head coach, conference coaches, AD (sometimes HC serves in dual role), and similar. h/t to Corky for dogged pursuit of clear consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I find Rikster2's logic compelling, and the example of Steve Kerr is a good one and does not have aesthetic problems, while giving priority to the information most likely sought. Agree that not everything "current" in some sense should be separated out, just current roster and current conference (e.g. "Current head coaches of the National Basketball Association"). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree w/ Rikster2: nest historical navbox of the coach's current team Nest templates such as Template:Louisville Cardinals men's basketball coach navbox, which have less relevant historical links. Leave unnested navboxes for current groupings e.g. current rosters, current coaches of league/conference.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with sources for an early 20th century coach?

Hi guys - this isn't college football, but George Colliflower, a college basketball coach at George Washington in the early 20th century is up for AfD and I know there are some real masters here at finding sources for historical coaches. Can anyone help with the article? I added several sources from newspapers.com, and feel like he meets the GNG threshold based on these, but every little bit helps. As we all know, it can be very challenging to find sources for coaches in this timeline (1910-1920), but they usually exist somewhere. Thanks for any help you can give! Rikster2 (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS re rankings displayed in standings templates

The various 2016 standings templates settled into the "No. N" format for AP Poll rankings, rather than the "#N" format seen in standings templates of prior seasons. This appears to align with MOS:NUMBERSIGN, but introduces inconsistencies with prior standings templates and team articles.

Our prior discuss can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 18#.22.2313.22 or .22No. 13.22 styling in 2016 conf standings templates. My read was general agreement that MOS says to use "No. N", but the project views "#N" as more traditional and space-efficient.

Per MOS, I've implemented the "No. N" format on the 1936-1950 conference standings and am now pausing for both project feedback and to see if there are local reverts from team-focused editors. Hopefully this spurs further discussion, where we either raise awareness and bring consistency to all display locations (including schedule sections within YYYY team articles), or decide to pursue a project-based pushback re MOS. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The MOS is clear; use No. as opposed to #. I'm fully in support of this. Lizard (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This is now complete for all years of FBS and FCS (including their prior naming conventions). UW Dawgs (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Union (Kentucky) Bulldogs football

Union (Kentucky) Bulldogs football has been nominated for deletion. @MisterCake and Cbl62: can we save this one? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

infobox render intentionally broken

Immediately prior to initiating this discussion, @Corkythehornetfan: spent 30 minutes breaking our existing conference data/Infobox render behavior for every CFB article, without discussion, any subsequent public notification, or any timeline to fix render of the conference name in the Infobox of all 300+ CFB articles. This change has also made it more difficult for a novice editor to implement the format (or inconsistency) to which they are opposed.

[2], [3] 02:32, 30 June 2017 (without edit summaries) Tested deprecating the our existing "ConferenceDisplay" and "ConferenceLink" parameters at the core of this discussion, replacing them with a new "Conference" parameter. This means the long-standing paired link text ("SEC (1932–present)") and linked article ("Southeastern Conference") would no longer work, having been replaced by the new "Conference" parameter. This was testing of breaking of our long-standing paired conference data in the Infobox across all 300+ CFB articles.

[4], [5] 02:46, 30 June 2017‎ (without edit summaries) Implemented, which 1) broke the render of the year range data we are now encouraged to discuss, and 2) broke display of the conference name in 300+ football articles. Ex, the Iowa Hawkeyes football Infobox no longer displays "Big Ten" and "West," we now show only "West" and Division II Oklahoma Bronchos football no longer displays a linked "MIAA," pending data fixes to every single CFB article. This also means the format nominally being discussed would now have to be oddly piped as [[Southeastern Conference|SEC (1932–present)]] or appended.

02:35, 30 June 2017 to 02:42, 30 June 2017 (generally without edit summaries) selectively fixed the render of conference data strings in the Infobox for these prominent articles: Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Clemson Tigers football, Texas A&M Aggies football, Ole Miss Rebels football, Mississippi State Bulldogs football, LSU Tigers football, Auburn Tigers football, Arkansas Razorbacks football, Vanderbilt Commodores football, Alabama Crimson Tide football, Tennessee Volunteers football, South Carolina Gamecocks football, Missouri Tigers football, Kentucky Wildcats football, Georgia Bulldogs football, Florida Gators football (It remains broken on every other CFB article). Undoing these Template changes right now would fix 300+ articles, but break render on the above articles. There are no apparent tracking categories to determine which articles are in which state.

02:46, 30 June 2017 (with "updated") updated our template Usage section per above, removing two and adding one.

02:52, 30 June 2017 ("Requesting comments for the Infobox – dispute between two users") After changing the conference render behavior for a handful of teams and breaking render for every other team, decided to create a project dicussion about Infobox render of conference names.

While our NCAA football school#Examples currently instructs editors to use the now broken parameters:

| ConferenceDisplay= SEC (1932–present)
| ConferenceLink   = Southeastern Conference

I don't necessarily think these actions were taken to stack the debate (WP:AGF, always), but do not understand the chronology of making material changes to the relevant functionality, breaking render on hundreds of articles, and only then is the project asked to follow the editor's lead to begin a discussion of the same, specific long-standing functionality without any public acknowledgement of those changes and current state of broken render on nearly every CFB article. UW Dawgs (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: has ignored the above ping, and resumed deployment of their new, undiscussed method of rendering conference data. Hundreds remain. Have a great 4th, I am out! UW Dawgs (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting comments for the Infobox – dispute between two users

Friends, UW Dawgs and I have been going at this situation for a while now and it is time for others to step in. Should we include or exclude the years next to the conference? The template recommended at one time that we insert the years after the conference name (ie. Southeastern Conference (1932–present)) like you see at Washington Huskies football. However, I think it is too much of a clutter, AND we're not consistent throughout the whole WikiProject. I understand its use in the PastAffilaitions = parameter, but it is pretty useless to list next to the current conference providing that it is either in the past affiliations parameter or listed in the body of the article. Currently, UW Dawgs is only inserting it in "his" conference - the Pac-12 and as I've said time and time again, if we are going to include it, we need to include it in EVERY article that this template is used in not just one specific conference. Not to mention that it is only recommended, not mandatory as UW Dawgs thinks it is. So, what are your thoughts? Do we keep it or remove it? Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If we do include the years of membership next to the conference in Template:Infobox NCAA football school, there probably ought to be a dedicated field for that year the program joined that conference. We could then render the years in smaller font, like how the various winning percentages are displayed. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox NCAA football school#removing conference entry year from conf article link. Having the conf name link include the " (YYYY-present)" text is awful. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pivoting from months of WP:DE into a Talk discussion as requested. Template:Infobox NCAA football school#Examples shows inclusion of membership years in both conference and division. If we don't want this, both of our help examples ("| ConferenceDisplay= SEC (1932–present)" and "| ConfDivision = Western (1992–present)") should be updated to remove the date ranges. Period. Editors, new and otherwise, should be able to rely on our examples and there should not be a covert campaign to undo edits which conform with the very examples we provide as guides to editing.

The biggest positive I see in the current instructions is more exposure and awareness around conf/ind membership year ranges, when we have ongoing discovery issues around accurately reflecting the team in the correct standings template for a given year. Obviously, that conf membership accuracy issue is more problematic in earlier seasons and our article creation campaign, rather than the more recent seasons which appear in this location. And a team's current conference "join/start-present" range can be derived when "| PastAffiliations" is consistently populated with the prior affiliations, something we are much better at now than even a year ago. The team's current division membership years somewhat align and duplicate their current conference years.

So I remain ambivalent about this outcome. Ongoing progress with "| PastAffiliations" data and other options such as surfacing an "Affiliations" section via our (dated) Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team pages format in support of "| PastAffiliations" infobox data are better methods to get at the issue I do care about, accuracy and completeness of the affiliations year ranges. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Most feedback ~~withdrawn~~ as Corky implemented a massive, unannounced template change which breaks render of the conference name on every CFB article Infobox (less the handful that were fixed), then 30 minutes later asked the project to discuss if we should change the render behavior of the exact same conference strings. The project should immediately focus on resolving the broken render and inconsistencies in help text. UW Dawgs (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you'd take a chill pill, I'm working on getting it fixed (as I have to do it manually). I have a life outside of Wikipedia. There is no point in really asking the WikiProject for feedback because hardly anyone replies. The main goal is to simplify it. I edited a few of the major programs so others would catch on to the change. Oh, and it amazes me how your about the only person who has a problem with the updates I've been making. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 09:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added the old parameter while still keeping the new parameter. If it doesn't work, purge your browser. It worked for me. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I support your edits to simplify the conference fields into one field. Having the display and the wiki-link for one data point spliceds into two separate fields is not a good practice. Thanks for attacking that. However, with moves like this, it would be best to retain the old parameters until all tranclusions in the mainspace have been migrated to the new field. Don't be bashful about asking for help with tasks like this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: We could do something like Southeastern Conference (since 1932) or something similar? I'm fine with it – even though I don't think it needs to be included at all – as long as it isn't linked. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Corky, I agree that the year range should not be linked. That was a consequence of the ConferenceDisplay and ConferenceLink links, which don't all only part of the ConferenceDisplay to be linked. Have the instance of this infobox all been updated to the Conference field? If not, can we wrap that up and eliminate those older fields? I just updated a few Pac-12 articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm planning on doing it overnight tomorrow and finishing up overnight Saturday. After this whole deal, I decided to stop. I'm thinking if we use (since year) instead of (year–present), it should all fit on one line (ASU Sun Devils is an example of it wrapping to the next line). I also think we should just insert the year after the conference and not add a new infobox field for it... thoughts? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

All articles have been updated to reflect the new conference parameter and the old parameter has been removed. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NCAA football school

Friends, what's your opinions on the white box around the logos in the Infobox? I'm thinking of removing it because personally, I don't think it needs to be there, but it would also be consistent with other college sports infoboxes. I've done a test on it at Template:Infobox NCAA football school/testcases and personally think it looks better without the box... thoughts? If no one responds (please ping me so I know there is a response) by Monday, July 10, I will go ahead and remove it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I agree it looks better without the box and is more consistent with other similar infoboxes. It may simply be a holdover from the earlier era on Wikipedia when logos were lower-resolution graphics with the white background attached, so having that box made sense. Not needed anymore with so many articles now having SVG logos. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment – white background has been removed. You may need to purge your web browser to see the change. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 12:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Olivet College Athletic Hall of Fame Inductees

I have nominated Category:Olivet College Athletic Hall of Fame Inductees for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Listing historical capacities in stadium infoboxes

I think we should come up with a better way of presenting historical capacities of stadiums in Template:infobox venue, if we should even list them at all. In some cases we're dedicating over 20 (twenty) lines in the infobox just for this purpose. See Tiger Stadium (LSU), Ohio Stadium, Neyland Stadium. Although I do notice some only list the current capacity (Memorial Stadium (Lincoln), Cotton Bowl (stadium)), which I think is the best way to go. Historical capacities can be moved to a chart somewhere in the article. With college football stadiums accounting for 8 of the 10 largest stadiums on the planet, these historical capacity lists will just keep getting longer and longer as universities throw money at contractors for bigger stadiums. Lizard (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Put it in the body. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I concur. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Too often trivial details are placed in the infobox seemingly only for ease of editing e.g. minor facts like referees and announcers of games.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Shouldn't be too hard to make it into a table. DMC511 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see this until now, but I totally concur with consensus to move it out of the infobox. Ohio Stadium was my main example; Progressive Field is another one, though outside this specific wikiproject. For past stadiums, should we use the final capacity as well? --JonRidinger (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I brought it up with only this wikiproject was because I hadn't noticed any problematic examples in other sports. Progressive Field's infobox I think should definitely follow suit seeing as the capacity is changed on a yearly basis. And I would say yes, use the final capacity for stadiums that no longer exist. Lizard (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with Treyboyd94

Hello all,

I need some help. There is a user by the name of Treyboyd94 (here are his contribs) that is going around and making small nonsense vandalism edits on seemingly random college football season articles. The majority of these edits are simple, like changing a single game in the schedule from a loss to a win (or vice versa), without changing the score or anything else. He made this edit on the 2016 Arkansas Razorbacks football team page, for no apparent reason. I reverted it and left him a message on his talk page, which I assume he has no intentions of responding to. If you look at his contribs you'll see a string of these sorts of small, nonsensical edits.

I was hoping that someone (who has more user rights than I do) at WikiProject College football could help me block or suspend this guy. Until then, I'm going down his contribs list and manually reverting nearly all his edits.

Thanks, PCN02 WPS 13:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This rings a bell, but it's a distant one and I am not remembering the details right now. But it involved an editor who made a lot of little tiny factually-incorrect changes to articles (maybe sports, don't remember) and little by little was degrading the encyclopedia. Very possibly this is a sock puppet - but if his edits are unsound then we don't have to go that far. I'd just follow his edits for a day or two, start giving him warnings for introducing inaccuracies (the series can be found here - I got it started on his Talk page), and when he doesn't quit, report him to WP:AIV, whereafter he'll be blocked. You might also go straight to WP:ANI, armed with a list of half a dozen or so recent corruptions, and see if you can get him blocked straightaway. ANI can be a lot of drama though. Anyone else have any thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Spare yourself and don't go to ANI. You'll live longer. Lizard (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree. There seem to be a few eyes on this editor now and it'll sort out soon enough if he keeps it up. Less fraught than ANI too. JohnInDC (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

JohnInDC and I both left warnings on the editor's talk page. If problems persist after these warnings, let me know, and we can have him blocked. Cbl62 (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@JohnInDC and Cbl62: Thank you both very much. If he starts back up I'll bring it to your attention but for now it seems he's stopped. PCN02 WPS 21:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Stadiums linked

I haven't edited as much recently but have started editing again with the season upcoming. I have noticed on team main pages that the stadium is no longer linked in the infobox. I'm not sure if it's on all but a lot of them I've seen have seemed to be removed. Did I miss a format change? Seems to me a link to the stadium's page should be linked. I don't want to readd the links if I'm not suppose to.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't be linked. I'd go ahead and re-link them. Lizard (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this and linked a few; I have no idea why they weren't. PCN02 WPS 04:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've even looked around on past edits and can't seem to find when it was done or by whom. I'll add the links back for now unless I hear otherwise. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Sigh. That'd be me... When I updated the infobox, I combined the fields into one and made it so we have to link them. I was going article-to-article at one point to link them again, but decided that I would do it as I get to the articles. Apparently, I forgot to mention here. Sorry 'bout that! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fred Jones Jr.

I started discussion at Talk:Fred Jones Jr. about the notability of Fred Jones Jr., an American entrepreneur. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Collapsible stat tables

Hi all,

I need some help with the 2017 Arkansas Razorbacks football team page. In the game summaries section, under the collapsible "game summary" box, I want to have a set of tables where I can put stats about the game. (Here are the stat tables; they are the same as the ones at the bottom of the article. I'd like to know if I can make the tables collapsible so you can only see them if you click a "show" button (so as to not clutter the article).

I've tried several things:

The Collapse template, but when I previewed it I was met with an error message that I had violated MOS:COLLAPSE
Adding a mw-collapsible tag on the wikitables, which only collapses when the user clicks a "hide" button
Just putting the non-collapsed tables there, which I could do but it'd be my last choice

Can anyone help me find a solution in which the tables can be collapsed?

Thanks, PCN02 WPS 02:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the page and added "wikitable collapsible collapsed". You can change the "Statistics" heading to a different name or remove it if you want but without the heading, the show button will beside the "Stat" heading. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Susquehanna University

Just a heads-up that they changed their mascot from the Crusaders to the River Hawks in 2016. All of the football articles/categories have the old name. Link. Rikster2 (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Issue with categories

An unregistered user keeps adding the category "Category:Lists of college football statistical leaders by team" (can't get that linked, sorry) to the article Iheanyi Uwaezuoke. As you can see, that category is only for articles that are lists of each program's leaders, not articles about individual players who happen to be leaders. I've taken it off several times and explained in the comment that that category is not for articles about individuals, but the user keeps adding it back. Judging by his word use, I don't think English is his first language, so he probably is acting in good faith. What's the right remedy here - I don't think he and I should just edit the article back and forth forever. Jhn31 (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That article was in poor shape. I reverted to the last stable version. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Be prepared for an edit war. That guy is persistent. Jhn31 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

For future disputes, it's best to avoid an edit war get others involved here earlier. Report users at WP:AN3 if appropriate. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Will do. I just assumed no one would fight back hard on putting a single category onto a page, especially once I demonstrated how that category was definitely wrong. But in the future I will follow proper procedure. Jhn31 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There is this: Template:CFBwelcome. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And Template:College football invite. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, Jweiss11! I wonder how does WPCFB usually recruit new editors? I am a PhD student at the University of Minnesota. We are working on a study to help projects identify and recruit new editors. I am not sure if this is something WPCFB would be interested. Here is the meta-page. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobo.03, back in 2006, User:MECU recruited me to the project, but he hasn't been very active in recent years. I don't think we've had much of a recruitment effort of late, but a number of editors have found the project on their own and made valuable contributions. I'm interested in your study. Let me know what I can do to help. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jweiss11! Our goal is to help projects to attract more editors to contribute. We are now trying to collect more feedback/suggestion for what projects need, and how to best help before we actually launch our study. And hopefully, we can attract more volunteers to participate our study. I will let you know when we start our study! Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jweiss11, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username	Recent Edits within College football	Recent Edits in Wikipedia	First Edit Date	Most Recent Edit Date
Gavo2020 (talk · contribs)	2	2	2017-7-16	2017-7-16
HogMonomaniac (talk · contribs)	2	3	2017-7-17	2017-7-21
Molltery (talk · contribs)	4	5	2017-7-13	2017-7-13
Briansc (talk · contribs)	1	1	2017-7-14	2017-7-14
V089m9sz (talk · contribs)	317	692	2008-7-21	2017-7-19
Andymccullough27 (talk · contribs)	221	867	2007-2-8	2017-7-20
SGSIII37 (talk · contribs)	252	3565	2016-7-22	2017-7-15
Ptkday (talk · contribs)	276	3171	2008-10-12	2017-7-22
Tecmo (talk · contribs)	270	5418	2012-2-25	2017-7-17

Bobo.03 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There is actually a similar list to this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject College football. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, WikiOriginal-9. Yeh, to some extend, I agree. However, we'd like to provide more specific information about the editors to help you make decisions. So the question is.. do you think the table gives you enough information for each possible candidate editor to decide whether they should be invited to join your project? Any more information you'd like to see? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any specific requests. I usually just click on their contributions and view their edits to see if they are good editors. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That's good to know how you identify qualified editors. I have an other question, I wonder if you know much about the relationship between WPCF and WPNFL? Is there any overlapping of members or content among the two projects? Bobo.03 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the two projects do overlap quite a bit in both content and editors. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! We have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. We'd like to invite some of project organizers to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

We also made some improvements to our system including adding a short description about why we recommend a particular editor, hopefully to save your time to look through their edits.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi All, it's unfortunately that I haven't heard from you, but I wish maybe one or two members in WPCFB could participate our study if you think your project need some editors to contribute. We have conducted our study (send recommendations) in a couple of projects, and receive very positive feedbacks. I wish we could engage more WikiProjects in our study. So please let me know. Thank you. Bobo.03 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP vs Defamation warnings

Since the Tennessee Volunteers' loss to Florida on Saturday, vandals have been posting on head coach Butch Jones's article that he has been fired. Each time, I've done a Google search just to make sure it is vandalism. (I've got a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP.) I'm wondering if the {{uw-bio1}} series is enough, or does saying a coach (or anyone with an article on WP) has been fired warrant a Defamation warning ({{uw-defamatory1}})? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it matters that much which one you use. Because honestly how many IPs come on Wikipedia with the intent to vandalize and then decide to stop when they see a warning message? Or even read the message? Notifications aren't even visible on mobile, so the majority of vandals will never notice. I only issue warnings so that when it gets past level 4 a bot will list the IP at WP:AIV. Lizard (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time Wikipedia stopped letting anonymous IPs edit? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I've thought that for over 10 years now, but Jimbo and the Foundation have made it clear that allowing IP editing is non-negotiable. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk me off the edge (or offer a useful suggestion)!

Anon editor 208.104.157.26 updates the W/L records at Ohio State Buckeyes football every week but consistently fails to update the associated "as of date" field, persisting despite repeated pleas on his / her Talk page to attend to this simple thing. It's - unhelpful and potentially problematic: Another editor might think to increment the W/L field a second time, thinking that it hasn't been done, so now the totals are wrong; and even if that doesn't happen, by mid-season it's not clear when record is correct "as of" and someone has to go through and tally the season by hand. The best case is that, every week, some other editor remembers to follow the anon editor's (now-pointedly) incomplete update with a correction.

I acknowledge that this is a tiny thing but I'm tired of fixing an almost deliberate error every week, and it's annoying the heck out of me. Please someone help me restore a bit of perspective, or suggest a way around it. Thanks for the therapy or ideas, whichever you've got. JohnInDC (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time Wikipedia stopped letting anonymous IPs edit? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could switch the orientation of the as of date and make it before the record so they're forced to read it?DMC511 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The HC won / loss numbers are smack in the middle of the comment field - hard to miss unless you're trying. And 5-6 comments on the editor's talk page would've alerted them, if the source file didn't. I'm just wondering whether this is something worth escalating, or just - absorbed. The edits are "constructive" in that they are correct, if incomplete, but they're not brain surgery or anything, and sooner or later an editor has to make the effort to fix what this IP doesn't. On the whole I'd say it's a net loss. It just seems kind of - small. JohnInDC (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

number of national champions

In many university football pages, we see different number of 'claim champion title'. It appears to multi-standard, and basically just 'claim' if nobody disagrees. When I tried to modify PSU's national title to 4, based on NCAA official website http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history. JohnInDC suggests to have a talk here. I would propose that this officially recognized should be a standard. It would better than 'declaring' and no definition of 'acknowledged'. An official standard is better than chaos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.207.223 (talk • contribs)

I've commented at Talk:Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football#Claimed_National_Championships. The question is, "how many national titles does PSU claim". The answer, emanating from PSU itself, is "2", and not the 4 that are shown on a list compiled by the NCAA, here. I agree that it would be helpful to agree, if we haven't already, whether the championships shown in the linked NCAA list should now be deemed "official" in some sense. JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know we strictly go by however many championships the university claims. That NCAA list is just a list of national champions for each year by various selectors (and it's missing quite a few at that). But I will say, I always found it odd that we go by what universities say, when for everything else on Wikipedia we adhere strictly to what third-party independent sources say. Lizard (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps because "claimed titles" is a knowable figure, whereas "national championship by this or that elector prior to AP" would be the subject of endless discussion & argument. Not of course that endless discussion & argument is a bad thing in college sports! JohnInDC (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I share the view that using each university's claimed titles is seriously flawed, subjective, and inconsistent since each university applies its own judgment without any guidance or shared standards. This is an issue mostly in the pre-AP poll years. I've previously advocated using the NCAA guide as the best objective criteria available in the pre-AP poll year, but it's my recollection that others disagreed, arguing that some of the selectors were too off-the-wall in their selections. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it can't get much more off-the-wall than this gem that Bama claims. Lizard (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Very true. Bama was ranked #20 in the final AP poll in 1941 (see 1941 NCAA football rankings), and its claim to the 1941 NC is ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2017 Division I FBS independents football standings

Template:2017 Division I FBS independents football standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

For whatever reason, there were two standings boxes being used for independents: one ending in "records" and one ending in "standings." it's been the standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NCAA_Division_I_FBS_independents_football_records_templates) to use "records" for the independents, and this makes intuitive sense to me since there can't really be "standings" for a conference that you can't win. I changed all uses of the "standings" box to the "records" one, and proposed deleting the former. Ostealthy (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Rivalry

Iowa-Penn State Rivalry. I'm finding a few mentions, but nothing that convinces me. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding nothing. AfD it. Lizard (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place where the general criteria for a notable rivalry are collected that I can point to? (I.e., trophy / name / 3d party sourcing / whatever.) The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa-Penn State Rivalry may be heading into what - to me anyhow - seems like settled territory and I'd like to be able to link to prior discussions. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Personally, I'd usually expect some sources that talk about the rivalry in the context of some extended period. Otherwise, the term rivalry is overused in routine recaps or lead ups to an individual game.—Bagumba (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Since posting here, I found several prior successful AfDs that laid out the various criteria and linked to them. JohnInDC (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I tried a while back to come up with some proposed criteria which I put in my user pages at User:Cbl62/College football series notability. Iowa-Penn State is a clear fail for football purposes under just about every one of the criteria. Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As it happens the AfD failed, because of what appears to be a well-sourced rivalry in wrestling. The closing admin threw to the article Talk page the question of whether the article should be renamed to reflect the actual rivalry between the schools, as well as whether the (IMHO) non-notable football material should remain. JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

Note: The is a requested move currently for the Army Black Knights football article. You're input would be much appreciated. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 18:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion input on former player

A discussion regarding the draft status of a player has been started. Your input is requested. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition of interior lineman

Lineman (gridiron football) says that the interior offensive line consists of the center, two guards and two tackles. However, I've seen some sources say that the interior is just the center and the guards [6][7]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess the existing text is implying that a tight end is part of the offensive line? Since it uncited, I'd say it's WP:OR and go with something verifiable. Personally, I think a tight end can line up on the offensive line, but is not an offensive lineman per se.—Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think tackles are part of the interior offensive line? That's my main question. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say tackles are part of the interior line. I do view the tight end as part of the offensive line. At least, traditionally they are. Lizard (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you find any source saying the interior line includes the tackles? Here are some more, including the one's from above, that seem to exclude the tackles from the interior. "This post begins with an overview for offensive tackles. Scroll down to see the overview for interior O-linemen." Separate rankings for tackles and interior linemen "all three interior spots" "primary backup at the Packers’ three interior offensive line positions" "The draft class, tackles and interior linemen" WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Tackles are not interior linemen. Although they aren't the outermost players on the line by rule, they are the outermost members of the offensive line. The term "interior linemen" only covers guards and centers. – Pee Jay 20:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the article unless someone has evidence that the interior line refers to the tackles too. Thanks WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed page move of Gridiron football

A move proposal affecting this project has been made at Talk:Gridiron football#Requested move 4 October 2017. The requested new title is North American football. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you guys handle recruiting classes on team season pages?

Hi guys - I was looking at recruiting classes on recent college basketball articles and saw that in some cases (see example) multiple recruiting classes are being listed, as opposed to just the one coming in for a given season. This led me to wonder how you all addressed recruiting and a spot check of a few teams showed that recruiting isn’t consistently added at all - it was there for last year’s Alabama team for example, but not for Florida. Just curious if you have any guidance on this? I am trying to get a consensus discussion going here). Any thoughts on this topic? Thanks in advance. Rikster2 (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Help regarding which is the more appropriate wordmark for San Jose State

Please see Talk:San Jose State Spartans#Second opinion. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the birth date and birth place parameters of Infobox college football player

See discussion. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

CFP rankings

In tables with team schedules, should CFP rankings precede AP rankings after week 9? It would seem logical, since ever since 2014 the CFP rankings are the ones that actually matter.Eccekevin (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Kobra98 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Several Texas Longhorns football individual games nominated for deletion

Just commenting so this post can be archived when the timestamp mandates it.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse

So, it's back online? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this movie one too many times. It's time we moved on from CFDW. Sports Reference has just as much info and doesn't go offline every other month. Lizard (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of data at the College Football Data Warehouse that is entirely missing from Sports Reference. But CFDW, as functional website, has not been reliable. David DeLassus told me he was shutting the site down a few months ago. But now it's back. No idea what gives there. Jweiss11 (talk)

Looks like it's now being run by one William Goodyear. See the very bottom of the CFDW homepage. Lizard (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Lizard. And it's not just going offline for months at a time; it has had a history of being taken over by viruses as well. For things where SR/College Football works, it's the far more reliable choice. If SR/College football doesn't cover it, media guides should be our second option. CFDW is just not sufficiently reliable to be one of this project's "go to" sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Does ANYBODY have anything to say about this even as a sumplimental source?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Other than the webpage nearly triggering my latent epilepsy? Not really. Lizard (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Princeton season articles

There is a requested move discussion underway at Talk:1869 Princeton Tigers football team to rename two dozen 19th century Princeton football season articles. Jenks24 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

converting college infobox to pro infobox

What is the consensus on converting college football navboxes to pro football navboxes after a player has graduated or is no longer a member of a college football team, but has either not pursued a professional career or just never got signed by a pro team? I feel strongly that all college football players who are no longer college football players should have their navboxes converted to a pro football navbox. The only exception I can think of is if a player medically retires or retires from football for any reason sometime during their college football career. But anyone that has completed their college football careers, whether they graduate, declare early for the draft, or have exhausted their college eligibility should have their college navboxes converted to a pro football navbox. Edday1051 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Fully support. Basketball uses one template for all levels, Template:Infobox basketball biography, and avoids this conversion exercise altogether. Perhaps consensus can change for football as well.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If a player has never signed a professional contract, or otherwise pursued a professional football carer, then there is no need to convert to the pro football player infobox. This issue most prominently affects old-time players (Larry Kelley, Nile Kinnick, etc.) many of whom played before the NFL even existed. As for modern day players, if they haven't signed professionally, I say leave it alone. If they ever do pursue a pro career later, it can always be changed at that time. The issue of having different college and pro football infoboxes is a whole separate issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be converted to the pro infobox, mainly because it shows the "undrafted year." Otherwise, they are essentially identical infoboxes. I think the "undrafted year" is pertinent enough to warrant the conversion to the pro infobox. As stated above, the only exception would be for those that retired from football for one reason or another in the middle of their college careers. I think those should keep the college infobox, but everyone else that has graduated, declared early for the draft, and or exhausted their college eligibility should have their infoboxes converted to the pro infobox, regardless of whether they pursue a professional career or not. Edday1051 (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, this discussion is about infoboxes. I know you guys know that, just clarifying since people keep saying navbox. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

yeah sorry, I meant infoboxes, not navboxes. Edday1051 (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be all for having a single infobox as Bagumba suggested. But if not, then I say maintain the current convention. The infobox is meant to highlight important aspects of a player's career; if a player is notable solely for their college career, like Abe Mickal or Doc Blanchard, then it makes more sense to use the college infobox since it contains fields that cater to them, like bowl games and major. Lizard (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Support, but change name to Infobox football biography – I completely agree that it would be easier to just use one infobox. I'm pinging Jweiss11 since he major editor for this WikiProject and I think his input would be valuable. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 02:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Corky, so you're suggesting that we merge Template:Infobox NFL biography with Template:Infobox college football player. What about Template:Infobox CFL biography? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Not sure what Edday1051 has in mind... he's the proposer... but that could easily be merged as well. I'm just supporting one infobox for all. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Edday1051 never actually proposed a merge. He was talking about when the NFL infobox should be used as opposed to the college infobox. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. I read Bagumba's comments and figured this is what it was about... I still support a merge, though, if it were to happen

Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 03:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Northern Arizona Lumberjacks navbox

Any objection to a significant change to Template:Northern Arizona Lumberjacks football navbox? The school's name has changed several times in its history. According to the school's website there have been five names (http://library.nau.edu/speccoll/exhibits/first100/Trivia/namechange.html)

Here's what I would propose for the navbox, but obviously looking for input / concurrence:

1899-1924 Northern Arizona Normal
1925-1928 Northern Arizona State Teachers
1929-1944 Arizona State Teachers (Flagstaff)
1945-1965 Arizona State College (Flagstaff)
1966 & on Northern Arizona

Ocfootballknut (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ocfootballknut, do you know when the "Lumberjacks" fight name was adopted? Does it go all the way back to 1899? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the exact change to the display?—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba, the display wouldn't changed, but the historical season links would reflect former school/team names. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, both the football team and the nickname go back to 1915. I agree that the seasons before 1966 should have the proper names, with redirects for the anachronisms like "1915 Northern Arizona". Cake (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Sorry I didn't respond sooner ... I forgot where I had put this question !!Ocfootballknut (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Info on D-III football

Hey guys, hope you had a great thanksgiving and are enjoying the final games of the season. I just cleaned up the NCAA Division III article and it had some overly detailed info on D-III NFL draft picks and starting dates of new D-III football programs. I parked the info here: Talk:NCAA Division III#Parked section on D-III football. Maybe somebody wants to use it somewhere. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

NCAA Color Templates

In the labyrinth of NCAA infoboxes, I found at least three different color styles being used across Wikipedia. Those are:

005EB8 in Module:College color/data (mostly from the last three years)

0064A8 and 0065A8 used across various templates.

Which one is supposed to be implemented for which years? When was there a color change? Cards84664 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: As our resident expert on color coding, do you have any idea about this?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Are you talking about navboxes? If so, #005EB8 is the color used by the NCAA Divisions I and III and Division II uses #0079C2 . I just didn't have time implementing it throughout all of the navboxes and forgot about it. Not sure when the color change for the NCAA happened, but I'd just go ahead use the module in all of the NCAA templates. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 04:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, navboxes. Cards84664 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Then yeah, go ahead and use the Module template. I'm not sure who was inserting those colors when the templates were created and only recently (about two months ago) were the NCAA Division I thru III added to the Module for those templates. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Michigan State–Ohio State football rivalry

Thoughts? The games have been pretty fierce the past few years but - well, that's what happens when two good football teams regularly meet. JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a nice Christmas-themed article, if nothing else. Lizard (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And it appears that's all it is. A google search is bringing up absolutely nothing to support that this a rivalry. Send the article to the paper shredder. Lizard (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My initial reaction was skeptical, but see this article from CBS Sports ranking MSU-OSU as the #1 modern college football rivalry. There's also this. Cbl62 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If this rivalry is notable, someone needs to expand it... otherwise, delete it! Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me commenting here, but I could not resist! Nice decision. As coauthor of extensive academic study of sports rivalries, this one (MSU v. OSU) does not make the cut. We use a system where a team's fans allocate 100 'rivalry points' across their team's opponents. This one saw a grand total of 4.25/200 points allocated. That is, MSU fans allocated 4/100 rivalry points to OSU, who reciprocated with just 0.25/100 rivalry points to MSU. This research is from the Know Rivalry project, with this specific data at http://knowrivalry.com/team/michigan_st/ The research is also the subject of a discussion stream below on this Wikipedia talk page. Cobbsj1 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bear Bryant's 1950 championship with Kentucky

There's been a constant back-and-forth for over a year in the infobox of Bear Bryant on whether or not to include Kentucky's 1950 championship. Opposer(s) say the NCAA doesn't recognize the 1950 title by Kentucky. Yet the university claims it, and usually that's what we go by, no matter how ridiculous. So the question is: in coaching infoboxes, do we include championships recognized by the NCAA, or those claimed by the university? This could also extend to coaching tables. Lizard (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I say only if we recognize Oklahoma A&M's nonsensical AFCA title?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't say much about 1950 Kentucky in particular. Looks like they beat Oklahoma, the easy choice for #1, leaving no top teams undefeated. However, it seems to me one should go with those recognized by the NCAA at least/at first, and preferably both the school and the NCAA. Though it probably recognizes a few too many, for purposes of avoiding OR we had to use the NCAA with the national champion navbox. As to why preferably both, one can think of several examples where what the NCAA recognizes clashes with what the school and fans recognize; does Galen Hall deserve a national title on his resume for 1984? Does Edgar Wingard deserve one on his for 1908? or Dan McGugin for 1921 and 1922? Vandy should probably claim 1941. The Florida football page regularly has its unclaimed titles removed as illegitimate, and any titles of a certain age (e. g. 1908, not 1950) not given to a northern team are highly suspect. Cake (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I always found it odd that we emphasize national championships claimed by universities over officially recognized ones, as it seems like a blatant disregard for the fact that universities are primary sources. Lizard (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You're disregarding the fact that universities only claim a national championship if someone else awards them one, which means that there's always a secondary source as well. As ridiculous as many see Oklahoma State's claimed NC for 1945, they were awarded it by the AFCA, a secondary source. Kobra98 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So far no one has answered the original question, so I'll repeat it: in coaching infoboxes, do we include championships recognized by the NCAA, or those claimed by the university? Lizard (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I vote those by the university, because those are really the only "official" championships in FBS. Kobra98 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what rule, if any, has been applied to coach infoboxes, but I have tried to impose some discipline on such claims in season article infoboxes. My view there is that the best way to handle the "national champion" claim is to (a) limit the designation to NCAA-recognized selectors, and (b) be specific about selectors so that a weak claim can be distinguished from a strong one. Compare 1933 Princeton with 1933 Michigan or 1935 LSU with 1935 Minnesota or 1927 Yale with 1927 Illinois. While such detail can't be replicated in a coaching chart, perhaps we could add an explanatory footnote in coaching charts where "national champion" claims are not clear-cut. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In the case of 1950 Kentucky, the result would be the same since Sagarin (who picked Kentucky) is an NCAA-recognized selector. Cbl62 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a prime example of hitching the ox cart before we put anything on there. I was indirectly answering the original question. If a school has a nat'l title claim, and a recognized claim regardless of how bogus some of them are, we should be consistent across the board and list it as such without qualifiers. If a school doesn't recognize it such as the several that Oklahoma doesn't then it shouldn't be recognized here. The only way it should be noted with a caveat would be vacated titles such as 04 SC or 89 Mississippi College.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't follow the whole ox cart/hitching analogy, but I assume you are not suggesting that we let individual schools be the sole arbiters of national championship claims. Wikipedia is intended to be an objective resource that does not merely regurgitate a school's objective claim to be #1. We need an independent and objective method of assessing such claims, and limiting the claims to NCAA-recognized selectors seems like the best course in terms both of independence and objectivity. Cbl62 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I can see how you could have misinterpreted what I meant. I meant to say "recognized AND claimed." if wikipedia consensus says to list it as a nat'l title then list it across the board. If it shouldn't be listed on the UK pages then, no it shouldn't be listed even on the coach page. ONLY when it has been taken away would I suggest a notification about it.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are we using to determine which selectors are "recognized" by the NCAA? The NCAA record book lists every random joe in his basement with a computer, while this list is much more selective. Lizard (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the official NCAA record book. I am unclear on the list you linked; I've only seen it recently and don't know when, how, why, or by whom it was created. Cbl62 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the list but then we are already out of whack with it. 25 Dartmouth, inluding the 1919 Centre who "won" based upon said Sagrin ratings.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if there was no "official" NCAA-recognized list of selectors. Or that they'd even care to have one. I lost faith in the NCAA's record keeping while working on List of unanimous All-Americans in college football (see note b on that article). Ultimately it'll have to come down to our judgement. The record book is extremely inclusive with its champion selectors; I have yet to see a single case of a school claiming a championship from a selector that isn't included in the NCAA record book. Lizard (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason why it was known as the "mythical national championship" in the days before the playoffs. The best we can do is to make sure that such claims are clear as to which selectors the claim is based on. Cbl62 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Well the edit warring on Bear Bryant rages on. Do we have a consensus to include 1950 in the infobox or no? I say include. Lizard (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I say include as an SEC title, exclude as a national title. I can only appeal to past experience with other coaches and internal consistency, and not any particular knowledge about the 1950 Wildcats, so I am open to changing my opinion. First and foremost, and despite the Cats beating them, the NCAA recognizes the Sooners as champion, and that seems our only hope for an objective source on the matter. That should settle it. It is not even recognized by the NCAA. Though, even if it was by some minor selector, I think one should best leave it out. It would be absurd to include national championships in, say, McGugin's infobox. Cake (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one for you: how many national championships should Johnny Vaught be credited with? Lizard (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That one is more difficult. I say just give him 1960. His HOF profile mentions the 1960 championship, and I suspect Ole Miss fans would do so as well. Again I can be swayed, but hard to imagine an argument for Miss over Syracuse in 1959, or for Miss over USC in 1962. Cake (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What about assistants? Jimbo Fisher has Saban's '03 title in his infobox. Cake (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan, but the facts are he was on the coaching staff and therefore was part of the team. Hell, we put national championships in the infoboxes of players who were redshirting the season their team won it. Lizard (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Presentor name added to lede of bowl games

@Roberto221: Roberto221 has added the presenting sponsor or formal name to the first sentence of 20+ bowl game articles. Examples:

Rose Bowl Game is now "The Rose Bowl Game, officially the Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual for sponsorship purposes, is an annual..."
Orange Bowl is now "The Orange Bowl, officially the Capital One Orange Bowl for sponsorship purposes, is an annual..."
Heart of Dallas Bowl is now "The Heart of Dallas Bowl, officially the Zaxby's Heart of Dallas Bowl for sponsorship purposes, is an..."
etc

While sponsorship info might belong in the lede paragraph and does help to support the infobox "| sponsors =" parameter (if cited), co-opting the very first sentence of the WP:LEAD with the current sponsor for bowl games with 50+ years of tradition is overkill in my view. Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's sacrilegious. I even hate the fact that some bowls have "sold" their soul for corporate dollars (Gator Bowl = TaxSlayer Bowl, Hall of Fame Bowl = Outback Bowl, etc.) But sponsors are paying big bucks to "slap" their name on the bowls and for some bowls, it's a large part of their revenue stream. I'm just glad the NCAA required the playoff bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Peach, Fiesta) keep their names on the bowls which is why we have the "Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl" and not the "Chick-fil-A Bowl".

Roberto221 (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_College_football

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)