Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jul2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

College Gameday (football)

As seems to happen around about right now, everyone in the country seems to think Gameday is going to be headed their way. I have commented out two claims about Gameday [1]. The ONLY game that is locked in right now is week one - ECU@VT. There had been a claim up there that Gameday would be at the Labor Day game between FSU and Clemson ... I guess that's possible ... but the link cited mentions nothing of it. also, someone had added today a claim that Gameday would be at PSU-ND for week two. I'd say there's about a 99% chance that's where they go, but until something is official, it needs to be kept off. Please add College GameDay (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to your watchlist and help keep the speculation off or commented out. Thanks. --BigΔT 14:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the headsup.↔NMajdan•talk 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

{{portalwarning}}

After seeing a ton of portals not updated today, I have created a template called {{portalwarning}}. If you fill it out for the portal that interests you, you can get an automatic warning that a portal page doesn't exist. It will warn you if either this month's article or next month's article is missing. For example, I have put these warnings at the top of our page: 

{{portalwarning|portal=College football|page=Selected article}}
{{portalwarning|portal=College football|page=Selected picture}}
{{portalwarning|portal=American football|page=Selected article}}
{{portalwarning|portal=American football|page=Selected picture}}

Enjoy! --BigΔT 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway to only have it display after a certain date? Like right now it says that the article for August doesn't exist, but its July 1st and there is plenty of time to add it. Any way to only have it display after a certain day, like the 15th? I can think of a way to do this and may experiment with it tomorrow. Glad I created the CFB Portal stuff for July early. A couple of the other Portals I update haven't been updated yet for July so thats something I have to do tomorrow.↔NMajdan•talk 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You may want to check closely who fixed the CFB article+picture this month. ;) Anyway, yes, it could very easily be changed:

{{switch|{{#expr: {{{day|{{CURRENTDAY}}}}} < 15}}|case: 1=Put code here that should be run after the 15th}}

... I'm torn on whether that's a good idea ... maybe make it an optional parameter. I think having the warning up there if it isn't ready a month early would be a good idea. --BigΔT 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it wasn't me! Thanks for doing that. I've been real busy at work lately and my Wikipedia time is way down. Yes, I had every intention of making it an optional parameter and I do think it is a good idea. I don't think that warning banner at the top should be visible until the latter half of a month. Who cares if the next month's article hasn't been selected a month in advance. It should be a warning like, "Hey, the next month is almost here and the article hasn't been selected." Any other opinions on this?↔NMajdan•talk 13:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's changed, it needs to be an option that defaults to the whole month. Keep in mind that some WikiProjects aren't as active and it might not get noticed if it's just there for two weeks. --BigΔT 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I declare it to be Virginia Tech month for abandoned portals. --BigΔT 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

University Bands under WP:CFB?

Should marching bands like Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band be under the WP:CFB? While I see the relationship, I don't think they should because we're more football related than just general school related. Then again, mascots are like Ralphie so I'm slightly torn. Any ideas? MECU≈talk 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm; bands are related to college football in a similar way as mascots; it's all part of the pageantry that makes college football what it is. Aubie is also marked as part of WP:CFB and yet ranges far beyond football in his presence and prominence. If it makes any difference, a member of this project, Littledrummrboy just started WikiProject Marching band. AUTiger » talk 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the plug, Autiger. As a fan of both college football and marching bands, my take is that marching bands do fit here (and I specify marching bands because a large amount of their purpose is typically college football based; the same can't be said for pep, concert, or other university bands) because as Autiger said, they are part of the pageantry that makes college football unlike any other institution. But of course, they've certainly got a home over at WikiProject Marching band! --Littledrummrboy 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we add the winning team's logo to the page of each year's bowl and season page, seeing as the way the site is set up now as a separate season and bowl page, to add more color and formality to the page. As you can see from the World Cup 2006 page, I implemented showing the flag of the winning country sort of as a badge/award for winning the cup. For example it will look something like this...

2006 NCAA Football Champion

Florida Gators
2nd Title

I'm also thinkin about doing the same for the conference champions, for those individual pages only as well as individual BCS bowl year pages, ie 2007 Sugar Bowl. Let me know if you guys approve/disapprove or have any suggestions. Thanks!! Squadoosh 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(I removed the logo from above.) There's a big difference between flags and logos: Flags are free. Just adding the logo of the winner isn't a good idea and wouldn't really pass our fair use criteria, because it would be decorative. We tried before having both logos on articles about a specific game and I think we eventually lost that battle. It's built into the template I created for a game header, but we can't use it because of the un-freeness of logos. Really, I think we'd all support this idea and more liberal use of logos, but the fair use policy here prevents it. MECU≈talk 12:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, logos to represent teams in specific games are being used in certain circumstances. Please see 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, for instance. However, that is different than just being a logo in a table, which has been disallowed. Many of us, myself included, think that Wikipedia has become too restrictive of fair use. We need to work to change the policy to one that makes more sense. We can start by voting for Foundation board members who support expansion of fair use. Johntex\talk 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Bowl Games}}

I added this to the talk page (actually agreed to a suggestion on it) but no one has replied in awhile. But anyway, this template has been changed every year without substituting it on pages, thus articles like NCAA football bowl games, 2005-06 has a template on it that gives dates for the 2006-07 games. It was suggested that this template be turned into a generic template for bowl games with no dates or anything, and then a new template {{2006 Bowl Games}} be created for the information here. I've worked on in here and have a generic template (of the current games I believe, they need to be in some sort of order though) and two templates for the 2004 season and 2005 season. These two can probably be just put onto pages that should have it (there are probably only a few), but the 2006 one can probably go on at least 10 pages so I was going to create that template. Any suggestions about this? Phydend 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a yearly one would be just fine. I agree that it would be better to have yearly which then remains and a generic one for the generic pages. MECU≈talk 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I did it. I made {{2005 Bowl Games}}, {{2006 Bowl Games}}, made {{Bowl Games}} generic (I think defunct games could be included on it, but I didn't right now), and added a like template to the 04 season bowl game page and 2 games, but I didn't make it its own template. Phydend 04:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Historic bowl logos deleted

In case no one else noticed, User:ESkog just did semi-automated deletion of all galleries on bowl game articles using WP:AWB claiming violation of WP:NFCC #8. I believe it was a invalid interpretation of the policy particularly since some galleries had commentary on the logos. It is also clearly he searched blindly and did not check to see the usage because he deleted an empty gallery[2] in Holiday Bowl.

To prevent another unthinking vigilante action such as this, if bowl logos are added back they should not be done with a <gallery> tag and more importantly, should have commentary on the logo incorporated or have the historical logo incorporated into the history section, e.g. change of sponser, style, etc.

Furthermore, it appears the user taking this action also has a history deleting NFL team logos, so be warned to validate your fair-use rationales, in case he decides to go after those. Admins, is there recourse for inappropriate use of automated tools like AWB? AUTiger » talk 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma damage control

The NCAA handed down the punishment to Oklahoma today and of course, many OU articles are being edited. I ask that everybody watch these for blatant vandalism and factual errors/misunderstandings. The NCAA forced OU to vacate the 2005 season, not forfeit. Here is a good article describing the difference that is not related to the OU situation. OU was forced to no longer recognize their wins in 2005. So, rather than being 8-4, they are 0-4. Opponents, must continue to claim a loss to OU as a loss (this would be different if it was forfeited). Bob Stoops' record will be adjusted to not count those 8 wins. So the losses in his record remain the same. Anyway, please help maintain the quality of these OU articles. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting - I remember looking into this issue a number of years ago (being a Gopher fan, our basketball program has a lot of vacated games) and I thought that the entire season would be considered to have not been played at all from the offending school's standpoint, making the team 0-0. I know that the University of Minnesota basketball media guides list records of 0-0 for all of the seasons affected by the academic scandal.Gopherguy 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

EL templates

Hi people, I don't suspect I'll check in here much as I'm not joining this project (yet), but.. i did create {{cfbhof}} and {{heisman}}. I suspect they should get a lot of use here and they are now listed on your template page. Be well. Jmfangio 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion

I'd like to make a potentially controversial suggestion. Per WP:TFD, "Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes." I was looking at Category:American college football templates and noticed a handful of single season roster templates. This is not common material and does not really promote standardization. I would recommend that this information be incorporated into the relevant articles and the templates be deleted. From a practical perspective, it's going to be awfully difficult to maintain these templates if every single college football team starts getting a roster template for every season of play. Additionally, the vast majority of college players do not meet notability standards. Having a template for them seems somewhat counterintuitive. Jmfangio ► Talk 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was actually looking at this before and these being used as templates are definitely not needed. I think the historical ones should just be substituted and deleted. A current roster could be used for some teams (I think the NFL pages have current rosters) and could be on each team page and updated each year while also being substituted on that particular season page. Phydend 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I already said go back and make the changes for now. I'm not going to be the one to do it, but i pointed you to the section on where to go about getting that done. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Major problem with naming conventions

Many individual college football team pages have serious problems with the naming conventions. First and foremost - the pages should say american football as many individual schools have notable football programs (aka Soccer). Secondly, some pages (Like that for BYU) used the abbreviated name of the university. I will fix these as I come across them, but i felt people here might want to know as well. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see is shouldn't it be American football, with the A capitalized? I noticed you moved some of them without capitalizing the A, but I don't want to change unless I'm right. Anyone know? But also, if the schools have a notable football (soccer) team, since the manual of style says (I think) that American spelling should be used on articles about American things and what not, they'd use soccer anyway. So is this really a problem? Phydend 05:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure about the "american" versus "American" myself. I'm inclined to say it "should be" American. That being said, every other example i found made me feel that others would use a capital a. I'm open to this part. Unfortunately, using "Soccer" instead of "Football" fails NPOV and shows bias toward the US even though "Soccer" is far more popular around the world than it is here. Jmfangio| ►Chat  06:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I was just looking at examples at the time and had found this. Should it be moved to Brigham Young University Cougars football then? I'm just not exactly sure about it, but actually think it may be confusing (I understand the difference and the POV problem just wondering). Does the manual of style say anything about this? Phydend 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Calling the sport "soccer" in reference to the sport as played in the United States is the only proper way to refer to it and does not fail NPOV. Referring to a U.S. soccer team as a "football team" would be incorrect and any such references should be changed to "soccer team". And "American football" is how our game of football is referred to outside the United States, but articles about the sport should call it simply "football" unless the article is about a team based in another country that plays using our rules.Gopherguy 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also strongly disagree. The current system makes total sense in context of the articles. It's college football (or, for our Canadian viewers, university football), not "college American football". --Bobak 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(e.c.)I agree with Gopherguy and Bobak here. Since these articles were created by people who's native language is American English, American English standards apply to spelling, grammar and jargon. Since the sport is called "soccer" in the U.S. and "football" refers to a completely separate sport, it should remain "soccer" in these articles. z4ns4tsu\talk 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia exists outside the confines of one article, and out of 6+ billion people on the planet, nearly 5.7 of them call what Americans refer to as soccer, 'football'. Whatever happens inside the article(s) is one thing; Soccer works as long as it has a DAB link where appropriate. But in the opposite direction, any disambiguation linking College football, needs to bear precedent in mind, and be clear in distinguishing. This means that any (and every) such link, must be mindful that American football is a separate category than football, as it is overwhelmingly outnumbered. I grew up in the US, I follow the Buckeyes religiously, but I also understand the need to be diplomatic and Wikipedia protocol demands certain things. Otherwise the entire system is bunk. Know what I mean? Ryecatcher773 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that the Manual of Style already has addressed the issue. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, especially the second and third points. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, most of the world uses "football" to refer to what we call "soccer". However, using the example given above, it would be ridiculous to call an article about BYU's soccer team "Brigham Young University Cougars football" because the vast majority of people who are the target audience (Americans) will assume that the article talks about the American football team at BYU. It isn't ambiguous because BYU is located in the United States, so the language in the article (and the name of the article itself) should use American English. Furthermore, if you go to BYU's website, you can see that they use "soccer" to refer to their soccer team, so the school itself does not refer to it as "football". On the other hand, something generic, such as the main article on the sport itself, should be (and is) called American football. BTW - there are not 5.7 billion people who call it "football" - only English speaking countries call it that.Gopherguy 20:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The A in American is always capitalized. It's a proper noun, and even in an adjectival sense like Irish coffee, Scotch whisky, or English breakfast (even though Scotch isn't the proper name of a person from Scotland, and no I didn't misspell Whiskey... there is no 'e' in the Scottish version...) the rule remains the same. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a silly anarchist, or shouldn't have been allowed to finish the sixth grade. Butterscotch, incidentally, may seem to contradict the aforementioned rule, but the origin of the word Scotch in that context is foggy at best, and for that reason has its very own naming convention, which of course I haven't the time nor the energy to extrapolate on... Ryecatcher773 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know too many people who don't know that A should be capitalized. My point was with regards to how the contention had been established. Just use capital a and move on. Jmfangio| ►Chat  07:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with adding the word "American" to college football team pages. How can we resolve this issue? Can we put it to a vote of WikiProject College football members? Jweiss11 04:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Per WP:STRAW, I think we should wait a bit before conducting a poll. It seems as if you are willing to focus on the issue and not let this stray. The issue is should an article about a college's football team be titled "football" or "American football". I have a list of all of the articles i "moved" so we can easily undo the work that has been done if we need to. For now, I say leave it status quo. Onto the topic, from my reading of WP:MOS and WP:NC, It would appear that American should be used in the title. With regards to abbreviations of the Universities and such, i have looked at WP:NCA and it seems to say it should be spelled out in full. Then again, I've also looked at WP:NCON. Now maybe I am not considering the information properly, but that too seemed to support a move to "american football" instead of "football". Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no logic to putting 'American' in the article titles for college football teams. Any argument for it can be completely squashed.►Chris Nelson 04:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your recent comments are getting outside of the context. It is absolutely logical to raise the issue and have the discussion. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the discussion is worth having. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Only in the opinion of those with faulty logic.►Chris Nelson 04:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter comes down to this: when the Michigan Wolverines play "football" they are without a doubt playing American football which they simply call "football". If the U of Oxford fielded a football (soccer) team they would also likely call their game "football". So University of Oxford Oxes football would be a football (soccer) team. But we wouldn't have to call that article "University of Oxford Oxes football (soccer)" because "University of Oxford Oxes" would sufficienty define the topic as football (soccer). Jweiss11 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The lead sentences of Michigan Wolverines football and other college football team pages should, and do, define their sport as American football via wiki link or as college football, which in turn should and is defined as American football in its lead." Jweiss11 04:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Great example, but I think they key difference is in exactly what you describe. "Association Football League" is the "proper title" i.e. that it was that body calls itself and is best known as. The Michigan Wolverines do not call themselves "American football", nor are they best known as such. Jweiss11 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah good point. I think this is a tough issue. Do me a huge favor, would you mind looking some of those convention pages i pointed out. As I read them, they support the naming of the page as American football because of the confusion with football to most people. That being said, even if you agree with me on that point - it does not mean that this discussion should be considered complete. This is a very tough call for me. Personally, I have no problem with the "football" use, but I am trying to think of this from the perspective of the guidelines/policies and the entire wiki community. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with this. The page you are talking about should be named Michigan Wolverines football and not have "American" in the title. I don't even understand why you'd bring up an English University as an example of how pages about an American University should be named. I don't necessarily agree with all of the points you are bringing up about the MOS, but even if you are 100% right that the guidelines would indicate that it should include American, it clearly says that "these are conventions, not rules carved in stone". Are you forgetting the convention that you should use the common name? There is NO ambiguity about what kind of sport Michigan Wolverines football is about. We can keep chatting about this if you want, but sometime soon we should hold a vote and I can't imagine that there's any way it won't be an overwhelming vote in favor of leaving "American" out of the title.Gopherguy 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No "rule" on here is set in stone. This is why there is discussion. You have already asserted your own allegiance to certain sides of the issue. There is ambiguity issues with that title, whether you want to acknowledge them is up to you. That doesn't necessarily mean that disambiguity (as it is called here) trumps everything else, but it certainly warrants a discussion. There are others who have been inclined to agree with the alternative and have done so here. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Jmfangio, I think that since this seems to be somewhat contraversial issue and since an early count of weigh-ins are not in favor of including "American" in the college team page names, you should revert back the handful of changes that you have made thus far. Then we can continue to debate, but at least the pages in question will be consistent in the meantime. I tried to move back the Michigan Wolverines football page, but I could not do so. I got the following message:

"The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs)

  • I don't think an "early count" says that at all. For example, the very first person who chimmed in supported the move. In order to undo the moves, we can tag the pages in the interm. I'll dig up the tag and post it here for you. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside; it's about consensus, not majority. AUTiger » talk 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the policy in question:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

First, the policy is qualified with "Generally" so it is not always required, especialy with good reason. In this case, the additional clauses in the policy are violated with your proposed moves to "American football" as it will increase ambiguity, confusing the most notable/popular sport of US colleges with one which is much less notable, and make linking to these articles more difficult and hardly second nature. Additionally, as other have pointed out, the organizations in question do not name or refer to themselves as Auburn Tigers American football, but rather Auburn Football (in the case of that university's published media guide). Finally, practically no verifiable or reliable source will ever refer to these organizations as Michigan Wolverines American football. With the "generally" policy qualifier and these good reasons, this set of articles is the perfect occasion to follow the policy to ignore all rules.AUTiger » talk 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I am confused Autiger - are you saying that WP:IAR results in status quo? That being said, there are many more people who speak English that would be more inclined to call it American football than just plain football. Nobody is arguing that colleges in the united states simply call it football. What I am saying is that most people do not. Your claim that "practically" no source would ever refer to the sport as a American football is not true. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As a follow up, here are just a few examples of news sources that classify it as American football. It's a cursory glance simply used to show that these sites do exist in droves: how stuff works (a US company i might add), bbc, [3], and [4]. You can also might want to try using search engines to do some copmarative searches - for example: how many sites exist if you do a simple search for american football? football? how about football excluding when excluding the word soccer? or just soccer alone. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, in my opinion, the part of an article explaining which sport a team plays should be aimed at those who do not know this information. Informing them that a team plays the American version of football would seem, by this logic, a good idea. If it is clear that the article is discussing an American team, many non Americans would be able to figure it out (I am not sure that this is really a major problem). However shouldn't we be making the information clear enough that people don't have to figure it out? Thehalfone 08:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you took the time to find four examples of pages referring to it as “American football”, three of which are based outside the U.S. and one which is obviously aimed at a non-American audience – few Americans would need that basic of a rundown of the game. Even people who aren’t fans of the game know what a touchdown is. If you doubt the intended audience, the line that explains that English units of measure are used gives it away. You’d never say that when speaking to an American audience - it's something you'd say to a group that uses another system of measurement normally. “Michigan Wolverines football” is a brand name, and throwing “American” in there is confusing and misleading.Gopherguy 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, it was a cursory search. Although my post came six minutes after yours, I did not spend even that much time searching for it. Michigan Wolverines football is not a brand name. Unless it is trademarked (which it isn't), that claim could not be substantiated. It is not confusing, and in absolutely no way misleads the reader, to call it American football. Who would read the title "American football" and mistake it for another sport? Most English speaking people call the sport "American" football. From my reading, the move is supported by wiki documentation. Jmfangio| ►Chat  14:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here (sorry if I'm overgeneralizing) are saying that it is not called American football anywhere, but those examples you give aren't specific. If you search for, example, "Michigan Wolverines American football" on google you get about 69 hits, two of which are the wikipedia article you moved, many of the others are ebay.co.uk links. However, if you search "Michigan Wolverines football" there are about 287,000 hits, including Michigan's own athletic site. I think though, the important part is what they call it themselves. On most of the articles, early in the lead, it is said "college football", and the college football article itself says that it is a form of American football. Maybe the leads could be changed slightly, but I actually think it is enough right now and they don't need to be changed. Phydend 14:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you missed my point regarding sources; Phydend got it. Searches for the construction "University Mascot American football" vs. "University Mascot football" show an overwhelmingly preferred usage of the latter. This is directly related to the issue of what is the most likely term under which these subjects will be searched. That goes to issue of the increased confusion that the move would create based on that usage (regardless of the 117 new redirects that would be created under your proposed move). You also continue to ignore the issue of what these teams call themselves. And yes, my assertion of IAR (with good reason) would maintain the current naming convention. AUTiger » talk 19:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Jmfangio, the examples, e.g. the BBC, that you bring up use "American" to define the sport in the generic, not a specific mention of a team. I agree that the page on American football should be named as it is, but you seem to missing the point that a qualifier of "Michigan Wolverines" uniquely defines the article as such. It seems that if we follow your logic to the extreme we would end up with a name for the Michigan Wolverines football page on the order or something like "Michigan (U.S. state) Wolverines (not the furry, yet fierce animal) American (technically North American, non Canadian) football"? Jweiss11 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Michigan Wolverines" does not establish context in and of itself. It does establish context for people familiar with American football and the intercollegiate athletic system that is in place in the US. However, the onus is not on the reader, it is on the article, to establish context. This is clearly asserted with Michigan Wolverines American football. That being said, I'm trying to find a compromise between how the articles really should be titled (based on wiki documentation) and the greater goals. It wouldn't surprise me for someone to make the argument that the articles should be "University Name" + Team name + American football team. But first things first. Short of that, i have seen one person site "grammar" for the basis of their argument and another use a portion of the naming convention that clearly says it should consider what the "majority of english speaking people" are familiar with. I don't have any confusion when i read "Indiana Hoosiers football". But what if i told you there were Indiana Hoosiers teams that had nothing to do with the sports of American football and nothing to do with the university. Jmfangio| ►Chat  15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The naming conventions policy also says generally, not always in regards to the "majority of English speaking people". Also, you are confusing what the majority calls the game with what the majority calls these teams. As Google searches indicate, they are not the same. AUTiger » talk 19:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Updated summary of opinions:
Support move:
Jmfangio
Ryecatcher773
Against move:
Gopherguy
Bobak
Z4ns4tsu
Chris Nelson
Jweiss11
Phydend
AUTiger
MECU
On the fence:
Thehalfone
Tally: 7-2-1 against move

Jweiss11 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Jmfangio, to address your last post: first off, there must be some onus on the reader to establish context. Doesn't the reader have to be familiar with the English language, basic syntax, and logic? Otherwise, what we've written here would just be meaningless curves, lines, and dots, right? Within the scope of Wikipedia (en), the word "American" is ambigious; American is a disambiguation page. The word "football" is also ambiguous to some degree, though probably on a lesser order than "American". But when you put "American" and "football" together to form American football, you have defined a unique concept. The same thing happens when you put "Michigan" + "Wolverines" + "football" together. Jweiss11 15:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't commented yet in this thread, but I have followed it, and you can count me as one in the "Against move" column. Seancp 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Seancp, thanks for chiming in; 8-2-1 against the move now. Jweiss11 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, Thehalfone doesn't appear to be on the fence at all. Second of all, this isn't a straw poll, so stop trying to turn it into one. Further more, if it were a straw poll, then that would only be PART of the determination. Third, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The way to get through this is discussion. So far, very few people here have taken the time to read through wiki articles to better understand how to approach a discussion like this. I'm giving this time in the event that someone comes up with something that relies on the guidelines and policies in place to support a status quo. Citing "grammar" doesn't cut it and "selectively" reading and citing others (and poorly at that), isn't going to cut it. With the proliferation of sports nicknames throughout the world, the various terminologies in place, and the existence of the disambiguation on wikipedia, it is the duty of the editors to provide context - not on the readers. It is much harder to go to every article and rewrite the lead sections so that American football is firmly establish. People can offer up opinions, that's what makes for discussion. But I don't know how to argue this any further when context is assumed rather than provided. Jmfangio| ►Chat  15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My intent on the tally was just to keep things organized and summarize where everyone stands in the discussion. It is certainly not a vote, because for some people its far more my interpretation of their comments than a discrete ballot. Jweiss11 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That maybe, but it gives the appearance that this is now a poll. Which it isn't. Moving on, context is not established by the ability to comprehend. Understanding of syntax and grammar allows one to understand the communication. Beyond that, there is no onus on the reader. People read to learn, people write to educate. The word football is ambiguous, the word American is ambiguous, the words "American football", when used together, are not ambiguous. The same thing does not happen when you put together Michigan Wolverines football. I hesitate to use the example i'm about to state, for fear that people will "take it out of context". Certainly you cannot create policy on expceptions, but I will use this to perhaps show you how the system, as is currently in place - fails. Let's assume that NYU changed from the Bobcats to the Giants. (universities do change mascots/nicknames - see Stanford University and Syracuse University) Under the current "convention" that has been established here - the name for the article would be New York Giants football. See any problems with that? The nicknames do not establish context. A partial use of the institutions name does not establish context. The sport, listed by itself, does not establish context. You must rely on the entire title to help establish context. Jmfangio| ►Chat  15:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, well it seems that the discussion is still very open. In the meantime, can we keep things where they are, and revert back the changes that you've made, to keep things consistent across the subject area? Can you provide a list of pages to which you added "American" both in the title and in key links, e.g. on Michigan Wolverines? Jweiss11 15:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree the naming conventions were good before Jmfangio changed them for many reasons all listed above. I've added my support above. I would be fine with links on each to help clarify for the non-American audience, like on Colorado Buffaloes football is a link/line that says "This is about American football. For football (soccer), see Colorado Buffaloes soccer." (not that CU has soccer, but that's besides the point.) I think the moves were ill-formed in large part as well and were against the current MOS conventions as well. MECU≈talk 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was able to move back the following pages to their old names without "American":

However, I could not move back these three:

No worries, just three of most historically important teams :). I did add move requests to their talk pages.

Jweiss11 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry for not getting back in here. I'm dealing with someone on another issue. In the meantime: that's all of them (at least - that i have written down - i'll see if i moved anything else but I don't think so). In the meantime, exactly what I feared happening is happening. People are using your "summary" as a way to "vote" and not providing any real "reasons" other than I like or I don't like. Again, we need input based on documentation here on wikipedia. I would suggest you strike through the poll so it does not further cloud the discussion. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed all the damage that wasn't fixable by Jweiss11. --Bobak 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This is the wrong stage for this discussion. Of course, all the members of WPCFB will agree that it should just be called "football" and not "American football." So any poll located here will be strongly biased and skewed.↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although this is where you'll get people who understand college football into your discussion. And that's also important... someone who looks for the article American football is likely to be looking for basic information about the game, but someone who looks for Michigan Wolverines football will usually be familiar with the game of American football and wants specific team information. If I wanted to suggest that the spelling of the "theatre" article be changed to "theater", I would want to solicit opinions on discussion pages of people who are knowledgeable about the topic.Gopherguy 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your argument doesn't work: If Wikipedia assumes the reader knows nothing of the topic, then Wikipedia also assumes the reader can read and see the universal reference to college football at the top of each and every article on these teams. It is not our responsibility to contort titles to make sure they don't accidentally click on what is officially called a football team instead of what is officially called a soccer team by (1) the team's themselves, (2) the NCAA, (3) hundreds of millions of people. At best, leave all these newly created "_____ American football" pages as redirects. --Bobak 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read what I have written over the course of this discussion. My argument is based on the readings of the guidelines. What I have been doing is reading wiki guidelines and policies to help determine how these things should be dealt with. If you think that the majority of english speaking people refer to football as "soccer" I would like to see support for that claim. Jmfangio| ►Chat  18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I think your readings of the guidelines are incorrect. We use the common name and stick with the variation of English most appropriate for the articles and that means that these are not to be titled "X American football". I wouldn't mind if you created redirects (but I don't think they'd ever be used or encountered). --ElKevbo 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Just my own little rant here, ignore if you like... It's crap like this that makes being an active Wikipedia editor not fun at all. Look at all the time and effort that has been put into this argument, all because one anal retentive person interpreted the Wikipedia rules/standards/manual/etc one way and felt he needed to make drastic changes to a long established naming standard. We've had college football articles with these names for almost two years now, maybe longer for some articles, and this is the first time I've heard anyone claim that they are ambiguous. Personally I don't think its ambiguous at all. But that's not my point here. My point is that this is a gigantic waste of time...time that could be spent adding informative data to Wikipedia. But no, we're bogged down in a pissing match over a naming standard. I hate every time someone nominates a legitimate article for deletion. We here in WP:CFB have seen it happen numerous times. It's annoying and discouraging. This is no different. Jmfangio's actions remind me of a government bureaucracy, like the DMV or something, where the system is so bogged down in red-tape that its difficult to ever get anything accomplished. Seancp 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm willing to state that the consensus here has been established that the "XXX football" and not "XXX American football" is the naming convention. Without wider support (2 people seems to agree to this, despite the ~100 WP:CFB members that have joined and agreed with the system) I think this should be a closed topic. MECU≈talk 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • SeacnCP - Don't attack me because you don't like what I have to say. Many wiki projects take it upon themselves to be the end-all-be-all with regards to content. This is an unfortunate downside to wiki projects. Because you guys have done a poor job with things doesn't make me anal and doesn't my argument any more or any less valid. If you don't like it - then don't comment. The red tape here is not me, it's this project. What this group fails to recognize is that there are many more people out there that do not call "american football" just football. Mecu - as said before, wikipedia is not a democracy. That aside, the fact that this project has established it's own "naming conventions" does not mean that naming conventions of wikipedia as a whole should take a back seat. Everyone on here continues to say: I like this, or Americans think that, or context is established by the name of things like "Florida Gators". Yet nobody has established any precedent for this amongst the greater community. I have. If you have a problem with the consensus of the community, then perhaps you should raise those concerns at WP:CON. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't accuse others of having "done a poor job" because they disagree with you. That's quite impolite and unhelpful. --ElKevbo 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. We use American spelling in American topics and international spelling in international topics. Virginia Tech doesn't have American football and football teams - we have football and soccer teams. --B 06:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • ElKevbo - They have done a poor job. I have had people disagree with me before who have done an excellent job of articulating their perspectives using well based explanations. Wiki is not about "what i like" or "what you like". I don't see how your comment is constructive in anyway shape or form. B I'm not arguing about soccer, that is an entirely different aspect to this topic. Soccer does not create disambiguity, football does. It's not about "We" as noone owns these pages. It's about communicating the proper information to readers. Jmfangio| ►Chat  06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pick any American college. Google "football" + that college name. See how many of the results are soccer vs American football. Google "college football" and see how many of the results are soccer. To go around changing articles about American universities to specify American football would be silly. --B 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not realize that google search results are the overall factor in defining naming conventions. Again, in reading polices and guidelines in place here at wiki, the move is supported, and far from "silly". Google is just one of the factors involved. If you are in the US, your search results will differ (drastically i might add) than if you were in say: England, China, Germany, or any other country. For that matter, where you are in the US affects your results. Football is an ambiguous term, soccer is not. Jmfangio| ►Chat  06:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Given the design of Google's algorithms, counting search results is not a bad proxy when the desired outcome is the "common name". --ElKevbo 11:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Google's algorithms are not public information, so that is not applicable. Wikipedia is not google. Counting search results at times can be beneficial, and it is in fact, something I have mentioned previously in the discussion. That being said, Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask, or whatever else should not be the sole determination. This is as much an issue about WP:D as it is about anything else. Again, it gets back to a very simple fact: Factually, football (in regards to a sport) is ambiguous. Jmfangio| ►Chat  12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, when taken out of context "football" is ambiguous. But we've given it sufficient context for most readers.
I'm sorry but unless you have some new arguments to present then I'm afraid that I still disagree with you. If you don't have any novel arguments then I'm not sure what continued discussion will do for us. I admire your initiative but unless something radically changes you're going to need to concede that in this particular instance you are on the wrong side of the debate and allows us all to move on. It happens to the best of us. --ElKevbo 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Football in an article title is an ambiguous statement. That is why articles like [[The Catch {american football)]] are titled as such. I don't need to provide any "new" information when what i've said is supported by guidelines and policies. Conversations don't end simply because you want them to end. This project doesn't own these articles. Jmfangio| ►Chat  13:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I am asking Jmfangio to stop. You are now only causing disruption. The consensus has been established before, and confirmed by this discussion that the naming convention adopted by WP:CFB is valid and conforms to Wikipedia's MOS regarding naming. Further discussion on this is merely being disruptive to make a point as would making any moves (article name changes) that does not conform to WP:CFB naming standards. If you want to try and include greater input to this discussion, that would be fine (ie, seeking input from the village pump, not contacting individual users on their talk page which would be targeted and perhaps biased), but further discussion doesn't seem to be fruitful as the same arguments are being discussed over and over... Anyone who endorses my statement as a resolution to end this discussion please state so. I am including this as a formal measure that if Jmfangio continues to be disruptive to WP or this project, an RFC may occur. You are right, we are not a democracy. We also don't let those who yell loudest get their way. The consensus has been established and confirmed. Please respect it. MECU≈talk 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I endorse Mecu's statement. Seancp 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I also endorse the statement. Gopherguy 14:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Pending any novel arguments, shifts in policy, or new information, I concur. I don't want to stifle discussion and debate but the consensus appears to be very clear among the group currently addressing the issue and further discussion doesn't appear at all likely to change that. --ElKevbo 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys, this isn't how consensus works and you know it. You all know what side I am on. But getting a consensus regarding a CFB topic on this WikiProject is a huge difference from getting a consensus from Wikipedia as a whole. If Jmfangio is truly serious about this issue, then it is my suggestion he files a request for comment and open this issue up to people with no bias. We can all engage in the discussion there but it will also be visible to people not familiar with this debate.↔NMajdan•talk 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There have been issues with actions on both sides of the debate. Jmfangio has in fact already solicited opinions from a wider audience, that of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, which developed a small thread rather than driving additional participants here creating a WP:MULTI issue. It would have been appropriate and polite to have informed those involved in the discussion here that he had done so. I believe an answer there was supplied such that he won't seek an RFC, but if he does, I trust he would inform the participants here of that action. AUTiger » talk 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You have got to be kidding me - I clearly asked for more input on the discussion. I wasn't soliciting for people to support me - I said "perhaps some more input would be appreciated." I also informed them that the discussion had not gone well. WP:MULTI is NOT applicable. I posted there and asked for comment here, that's not splintering a topic. The fact that some people responded there does not mean that the discussion has been splintered. It's simply means i asked for more people to look at the discussion. You guys needs to do a better job of communicating circumstances. I am quite serious about this discussion and will pursue it further as the circumstances change. Jmfangio| ►Chat  19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You have misread what I said; I did not say that you solicited support, I said solicited opinions referring to all opinions, which is fine. However, there is indeed an issue (though relatively minor and, I will assume, unintentional) with MULTI because a parallel discussion was taking place at that page of which interested and involved parties here were not aware. I'm not sure what change in circumstances you are referring to, but once again, I trust if you raise an RFC, you will inform the parties already involved in the discussion.
Please clarify though; at the discussion at Universities, you seemed somewhat satisfied when WP:ENGVAR was raised (the reasoning and arguments of which have been raised in this thread multiple times, admittedly without naming that section specifically). Are you now saying you dismiss it? AUTiger » talk 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
An RFC would be most welcome if someone would like wider participation in this discussion. --ElKevbo 19:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I understood exactly what you said. You said i was fractioning the conversation. WP:MULTI says "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums." I did not do that. I pointed others to this discussion and asked them to discuss it HERE. Jmfangio| ►Chat  21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the bottom line for many of us: (1) we can reasonably expect a reader to understand from the introduction to any football page that they are about college football and not college soccer (and we do not need to cater to the most ignorant readers on earth, just competent people who may not be familiar but can be brought up to speed from a good introduction); (2) universities often officially call their teams "____ Football"[5]. That's all there really is to know. --Bobak 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Teams outside the US

Looking at this from an outside perspective, can I suggest that for teams outside the US (and there are some) the term "American football" should be used in place of "football" in article titles. ("College football" isn't much use as college is a much looser term.) Currently almost none of the teams in Category:British Collegiate American Football League teams have the sport in the name at all and "Kent Falcons" means nothing when looking at Category:Canterbury Christ Church University (and not much more when looking at Category:University of Kent).

The other one where the naming convention doesn't quite work for some teams is "<School> <Nickname> football" - several of the British teams take in more than one university (and "school" is never used for a university here, but that's minor) and some might be using the city/town or county name instead * - e.g. the Kent Falcons cover both the University of Kent and Canterbury Christ Church University (both in Canterbury in Kent), the Leicester Longhorns cover both the University of Leicester and De Montfort University, the Nottingham Outlaws cover both the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University, the Oxford Cavaliers cover both the University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University, the Southampton Stags for both the University of Southampton and Southampton Solent University and the Surrey Stingers for both the University of Surrey and Kingston University (both in the historic county of Surrey).

(* It's not easy to tell at a glance as some appear to derive a name from one of the universities - e.g. the Caledonian Roughriders cover Glasgow Caledonian University but also the University of Strathclyde, and the ARU Phantoms cover both Anglia Ruskin University - a name which is newer than the team - but also the University of Cambridge.)

Timrollpickering 07:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting point about the naming of the schools. In the absence of a conflict then - couldn't the convention be <School> <"proper" name of institution> <nickname> American football team unless the <school> name creates a conflict. In which case, we create a conditional convention. Jmfangio| ►Chat  07:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This could be a lot trickier than it sounds because it's not always clear if the teams are using "nicknames" as would be recognised in the US - some of these names seem to be the formal name of the teams rather than a construction combining a nickname with a university or place name. It's also not clear if they have any formal recognition by the institutions themselves - remember that university sport is not followed much by the public at large in the UK - see British Universities Sports Association (BUSA). Currently BCAFL is outside BUSA and it's quite possible some of the individual teams are not formally affiliated to the university Athletic Union or students' union, especially if they're taking in players from more than one institution. A few teams have websites located on university/union servers (e.g. Bath Killer Bees) but a lot don't. (And I'd be surprised if Napier University had sanctioned a team called Edinburgh Timberwolves, which isn't shared with the University of Edinburgh.) So should the university names be included and if so, what form? (UK "short form" conventions are not universal with acronyms, the university name minus "university of"/"university", "Foo University" in place of "the University of Foo" and even keeping the long form all in use and with institutions either encouraging wildly differing practices or deploring using any short form at all.)
And what's to be done about the teams that represent more than one institution, especially those that use just one's name or those that use a name that could refer to either the institution or the area? Any attempt to list in the article title all the institutions a team is currently made up of will absolutely shatter with the Staffordshire Stallions - Staffordshire University, Keele University, Burton College, Cannock Chase Technical College, City of Stoke on Trent Sixth Form College, Newcastle-under-Lyme College, Walford and North Shropshire College, Rodbaston College, Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology, Stafford College, Stoke-on-Trent College and Tamworth & Lichfield College. Timrollpickering 09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That is why I think a convention that relies on conditions would be appropriate. First, let me preface this with something: I may not always use the "best" terminology. I'm clearly uninformed with regards to the University/College/Higher Education system throughout the world, so hopefully we can keep that in mind when discussing this. In the case of the Staffordshire Stallions - I'm not sure any changes are necessary. There are no ambiguity issues (as far as i can tell) because they are only team that plays (AF). Am I incorrect in that assumption? I am not sure how the system in Great Britain works when creating a "team name" for an organization that represents multiple institutions. With all this taken into consideration, I want to try something using the University of Impat (mascot: the Packrats) and Projur University (mascot: the Jelly Beans) (totally made up - so as to keep these as neutral as possible) I'm thinking we could do something like this (first ever try at something like this) Although this needs to be address on other project pages, it is directly applicable here, so if we can can get some semblance of consensus here -
When creating an article to discuss an athletic program for a "educational institution", article names should follow this format:
  1. Identify the institution in question utilizing their "proper name" - In this case University of Impat or Projur University, not simply Impat or Projur
  • Exceptions - Certain athletic organizations may represent a group of institutions. In that case, simply use the "most" acceptable organization identifier (so in the real world example of the Staffordshire Stallions - use Staffordshire)
  1. Identify the nickname/mascot of said institution. If the article is about the entire athletic department, nothing further needs to be added. In the event that the article is focus on a specific athletic department within that institution, proceed accordingly.
  2. If the institution is home to teams in multiple athletic disciplines, allow for disambiguation in accordance with WP:D. Thus, the article for the baseball team at Projur University would be identified as Projur University Packrats (baseball team).
Yeah - I think I see some of the very big differences in US and UK practice (and terminology) here. I'm not terribly familiar with the way sports are done in US institutions but from what little I can see (and College football: "Many [College athletes] do receive scholarships and financial assistance from the university") the approach taken is very different from how it's done in the United Kingdom.
Although sweeping generalisations about UK universities must always be taken with caution (as there is so much diversity), in general sport isn't directly supported by the institution itself but by the Athletic Union or students' union, an autonomous body usually run by the students for the students. Whilst taking part is popular with many students, following it is rare amongst the non-sport (many will hear far more about the activities of the Rugby Club off the field rather than on it) and has very litte profile with the public at large - the Cambridge-Oxford boat race is the main exception (televised on national network television). Consequently there is far less institutionalisation of sport and few sports scholarships here than in the US. (Loughborough University is very much an exception that demonstrates the point - they've won the BUSA championship every year for over twenty years, and not had much overall competition for it.)
Similarly "sports nicknames" have very limited meaning in the UK. Certainly there's no habit of each team in a particular sport being identified by a particular nickname common to the institution. Also because some universities have multiple teams in popular sports, particularly football (soccer), rugby, (field) hocky, it'd be common to group them under something like "Rugby Club" or "Men's Rugby Club"/"Women's Rugby Club" as clubs are the normal method of organisation. One would talk of playing the "Queen Mary Football 1st Team" or the "Kent Hockey 2nd Team" rather than talk of a hockey team playing the "Kent Falcons (Hockey)".
With the BCAFL teams it's not clear if even the teams representing a single institution (e.g. Birmingham Lions) are following a "short university name + nickname" format or just taking it as a formal title. Certainly the Birmingham Lions website seems to do the latter, whilst the new Durham team appears to be affiliated to the Durham AU as "Durham Saints American Football Club" (with "Durham Saints" as the short form for competitions).
If as I suspect the UK practice is for teams to come up with their own formal title rather than a common construct (as appears to be the the US form) then the naming convention will need to cover this, especially as some teams can't go at just the individual name alone - Plymouth Blitz is an article about the city being bombed during the war and the current team article location is Plymouth Blitz (BCAFL) which means nothing to the uninitiated. So for example should an article on the Durham team be at:
The last isn't quite the official name but reflects the common rendering (in so far as there's a distinction, the club rather than the team is the unit of interest in most UK sports - again a point where two traditions clash). Timrollpickering 13:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • These are all excellent points. So here's a question, do you see the word Club/team as interchangable? From what I know - they are. In which case, it seems WP:NC encourages the "colloquial" term - UK organizations will use club and us will use team. That being said, in my reading of this stuff, it appears that team may not be necessary. I think it *should* be included, but I the move for conciseness is not to be overlooked. That is also expressed in the guidelines. The naming convention for sports teams addresses nicknames and that's what i tried to use in the above section. Unless part of a formal title football need not be capitalized (ex: National Football League is capitalized because that's a proper name). ( and ) are used in disambiguation cases. If there is no ambiguity - then there isn't any need to mention it in the title. That's why Atlanta Braves doesn't have (baseball) after it. As for Durham Saints vs Durham university, that's dictated by the circumstances. If Durham Saints is a collection of "college" teams rolled into one - then the convention would say use that instead of Durham University. The only reason institutions in the US require some disambiguation is because otherwise you wouldn't know what they were talking about. Simply putting University of Michigan Wolverines would imply that the article addresses their athletic department as a whole. If the article is addressing only one sport team then that needs to be asserted. Jmfangio| ►Chat  15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
When there's only a single team (or a non team sport such as Caving) then the distinction can be trivial, although for what it's worth I've heard "club" used far more to describe the group doing the sport than "team", at least off pitch.
When there are multiple teams the distinction becomes clearer - the "club" is the overall organisation for people playing the sport (or not actually playing it) whilst individual teams are just groups for playing. One would talk of the "Women's Rugby 1st Team" or "Men's Rugby 2nd Team" (or even just the "Firsts" and "Seconds") when discussing how a team is doing, but the "Rugby Club Ball", "Rugby Club initiation ceremony" or "Rugby Club drinking games" (the latter two are rather noticable features of university sports here) and there are people who join the sports clubs for the social atmosphere rather than to play the game. I'd have to check but I think trophy results are recorded by club rather than team.
If Durham Saints is a collection of "college" teams rolled into one - then the convention would say use that instead of Durham University. Well it's not - it's a Durham only team. However if we start having one standard for the teams that cover one university and another for those that don't then we're going to get some inconsistencies, especially when it comes to disambiguation (which needs to be consistent for the Nottingham Outlaws and Plymouth Blitz). Should the "Birmingham Lions" be at "University of Birmingham Lions"? Would one talk of the "Michigan Wolverines" or "University of Michigan Wolverines"? Timrollpickering 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Silly question, what college sports teams outside the US are notable enough that they should have separate per-sport articles? Is this an academic (bad pun intended) question or is there actually an article that someone would like to create? --B 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a number already. To start with some of the more famous in the UK the Cambridge University Boat Club (of The Boat Race fame) and many of the Cambridge college clubs have articles, then there's the Oxford University RFC (rugby) which is prominent in The Varsity Match, there's the Queens University Belfast A.F.C. in the (Northern) Irish Second Division and so forth. Category:Student sport in the United Kingdom has some of them either there or in sub-categories but it's not the best arranged set of categories and there are other articles. Timrollpickering 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is definitely not an easy issue. I think it's important to have some sort of "guideline" in place to help people with this issue. As you can see, many people have very different opinions and this has led to a great deal of inconsistency. The NC for sports teams is somewhat sparse right now. It does give special attention to circumstances (North American vs Other) - so how do we expand on them so that the consensus that is establish is properly represented? Jmfangio| ►Chat  20:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth the Huddersfield Hawks has been proposed for deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huddersfield Hawks (I did not nominate.) Timrollpickering 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Western Kentucky!

Western Kentucky University officially joins D I-A (FBS) tomorrow, July 24th, 2007. They are in a "transition" period for 2 years and not eligible for conference (Sun Belt) or bowl games until their 2-year transition is over, starting with the 2009-2010 season. Anyone wanting to work on changing all the things that need to be changed because of this, please do so (category, the master team table, the number 119->120 everywhere, all the graphics, etc). MECU≈talk 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's say welcome to the 120th D-IA team! (and there are many sports writers who aren't even following the new naming convention). Big Red was always ready for the big time (wasn't it the only D-IAA mascot used in those Capital One Mascot Challenge commercials?) --Bobak 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a year when YoUDee was featured as well. --Littledrummrboy 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If the football transition is anything like the basketball transition, the NCAA will not list them a member of Division I-A until the transition period is over. Games against them won't count towards Div I-A wins. For the next two years will basically be in limbo. Moreover there are still only 119 Div I teams. So don't go changing articles quite yet. -- KelleyCook 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it works now, but I know that when we (VT) played Florida A&M in 2004, that counted as a 1-A win for us because when we scheduled them, FAMU was planning to move to 1-A and they aborted the move during the spring of 2004. VT and Illinois got special exemptions from the NCAA to count the game as 1-A. As it was, it didn't matter - Illinois wasn't going bowling anyway and we needed to be 7-5 because of our pre-season game to go bowling anyway ... then the next year, the rule only allowing one 1-AA team every four years was done away with. --B 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there was a rule change where D-IA schools are allowed to count a certain, limited number of wins over D-IAA schools as a bowl qualifying win. It wasn't one per season, but it allowed schools like The Citadel to get some extra paydays. As for WKU, I agree that they're not full-fledged until the end of their pledge season (heh). Now they get to be paddled by the major programs looking for a free "W". --Bobak 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The old rule (pre-2005) was that you could count one I-A win towards bowl eligibility every four years. The new rule (2005 and on) is that you can count a I-A win every year. When VT scheduled FAMU for 2004, they were originally planning to move to I-A (2004 would have been their first transition year), but due to some internal mismanagement, they decided that spring to abort the move. The NCAA gave VT and Illinois credit for a I-A win because when we scheduled them, they were supposed to be I-A and it was too late to change. --B 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Ok, I've been thinking about the scope of this project and I think we should exclude some things from the project. In light of the recent discussion about naming conventions, I'm beginning to question whether any non-American university should be in scope. I think the only universities that should be in scope should be NCAA universities. Also, I'm beginning to think we should not include marching bands in the college football wikiproject. Short of half-time shows, what correlation does a marching band have to a college football program? Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, explains a lot of the recent confusion. Since "college football" is much more developed in the US (there isn't anything in the world close to the giant machine, good or bad, that surrounds the NCAA and related inter-institution college football), I'd recommend that the international equivalent be "university football" (esp. since the word "college" in many countries connotes a different sort of school than some of the major universities calling themselves college in the US). Of course, the Canadians call inter-university Canadian football "university football". As for marching bands, many of them only perform (in full size) at college football games, rallies or graduation ceremonies due to size limits. I agree they could be moved into a different category. --Bobak 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
With the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band, I don't think there is a need to keep them under our umbrella when they are MUCH better suited under there. I'll wait for more input before I take any action.↔NMajdan•talk 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
How about if NCAA is under WP:CFB, and if someone wants to work on Canadian "college football", they can be a sub-project off of us, same for Europe and elsewhere as well. Since we have generally been NCAA focused, it makes sense, but these other topics should (eventually will) get covered, so whynot just have them a sub part of our project? They can use what we've got developed as a starting point and just contribute or adapt as needed to their specific needs (naming, portal, master team table, etc). I agree that the marching bands, since they have their own wikiproject, shouldn't be under us. MECU≈talk 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think these are all excellent points. Just remember though, that this doesn't solve the naming conventions problem. Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What problem? Why don't we change all instances of National Football League to National American Football League? Don't mean to sound hostile but this shouldn't be discussed on this page anymore. That is, unless you are informing us of an RFC or some other form of mediation.↔NMajdan•talk 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the NFL vs NAFL, the league name is the National Football League. It's a proper name and thus, does not fall under the WP:D issue. In regards to, "In light of the recent discussion about naming conventions, I'm beginning to question whether any non-American university should be in scope"; removing non-US institutions does not mean that the WP:D issue is resolved. I was just clarifying that point in case there was some "assumption" based on that statement. Jmfangio| ►Chat  00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And "Michigan Wolverines football" team is the name of the American football team that is sponsored by the University of Michigan.Gopherguy 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop making personal pov claims, I am agreeing with what is said above. But the University of Michigan football team team is NOT officially named "Michigan Wolverines Football". Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you define for me what would constitute them "officially" being called anything. I'd argue that the fact that they choose to call themselves that (check their website or media guide or just call their athletic department and ask) makes them "officially" the "Michigan Wolverines football" team. It's not a personal POV. It's the University of Michigan's POV and since it's their team, I don't think anyone else's POV matters.Gopherguy 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to get off-topic in this section, but Jmfangio, please read Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns, Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms and WP:D#Primary_topic. Thanks, AUTiger » talk 05:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks AU - will hop on that right now! Definitely something for me to reread. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why it's good for people to use wiki documentation. This will help move the discussion forward. Now one point on the proper nouns article is "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name ..." That would support status quo if we were talking about a proper noun; but we aren't. This is a descriptive name (that points to the appropriate section). It says "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." I would contend that using football as opposed to American football is POV. The dealing with self-identifying terms section says "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." I would absolutely, without hesitation say that the section points to using football vs. American football within the article content. However, that does not appear to extend to the article title. It goes on to say "Where there are two self-identifying names in use and both are descriptive, then the uncontroversial name should be used. " Now from what i can tell, the projects contention is not that American football is ambiguous, rather it is simply "unnecessary". Whereas, the name football is ambiguous. I know people will argue that football is not ambiguous, but that is only within the context of the article. These are a function of a policy, which seem to supersede guidelines (WP:D. It stars off with "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase ...then that topic may be used for the title of the main article". That absolutely supports status quo, however, I think that's not 100% applicable here. Remember that the point is conditional (ie - it says "may" not "must"), but technically the article title is used to disambiguate between the various teams within an institutions athletic department (let's move away from specific ones). If said university had only one athletic team, you could leave out the term "football" or "basketball" etc... from the article title. I think while the various documentation pages show some support for the status quo, they (as best I can tell) overtly support a different way of naming these articles. Note, the quotations are not to patronize or antagonize anyone, they are inserted to assure that in case those pages change, the context of this discussion is relative to how they currently. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we really going to go through this all over again? Seriously? Either inform us of an RFC or some other form of mediation or drop the issue. Seancp 11:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I regret, Jmfangio, that you still remain unconvincing when (1) usage (googled for quick example), (2) economics (college football is a very, very rich "industry") --as well as the very definition of the word college football vs. college soccer; and the use of the term by NCAA and college teams. If this were a trademark, "college football" --as used here-- would trounce whatever is held in the rest of the world, because college sports in the rest of the world do not come close to the (good or bad) size that they've reached in the US. I know you won't argue those points, because this is the third time the latter two have been brought up and there still isn't any adequate response. Please move on and bother another wikiproject, because you're becoming a gadfly. --Bobak 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding and misapplying the concept of NPOV. As to the sections I pointed you to, one of the key points I hope you'd see was: Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Beyond that, I'm not going to go into detail (to avoid the appearance of wikilawyering) but suffice it to say, I do not agree with your interpretation and application of the guidelines. And once again, that's what we're debating over, guidelines, which are not black and white or absolute rules. All this debate time is taking away from improving and maintaining content. AUTiger » talk 22:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic, would anybody object if I began removing marching bands and non-NCAA teams from the project?↔NMajdan•talk 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I was part of hijacking your topic... I think your proposed changes are the right way to go.Gopherguy 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think I got rid of all the marching bands.↔NMajdan•talk 22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I also got rid of all the BCAFL articles.↔NMajdan•talk 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we should clarify the name of the project to Wikiproject NCAA college football? I did notice you added text to clarify/focus the project scope in the description which is helpful. AUTiger » talk 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We need an FA

So, this project has been going on for a little over a year and we still do not have one Featured Article. We have two Featured Lists, but we need a featured article. What Good articles are the closest to FA quality?↔NMajdan•talk 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you nominate Oklahoma Sooners football for FA and were rejected for not having enough "bad" (aka NPOV) parts and more references, etc? I would think that would then be the closest. Vince Young was an FA for a short time, but then fell back to a B last I saw. There are probably lots of B articles with a little polishing that could be GA's as well. MECU≈talk 21:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Oklahoma Sooners football failed for POV issues.14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Vince Young never actually made FA, only GA. Then it got demoted primarily because the NFL portion of the article is poor (although there are issues with the college section also). I have helped get several football articles to GA recently. I think 2005 Texas Longhorn football team is very close to FA because the GA nomination was very thorough and also because it has had a Peer Review. I have been hoping to give it another thorough pass and then FA nom this summer, but I've been off-wiki more than expected. I may get to it in August, actually. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Johntex\talk 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If anybody has time, please go through the WPCFB log and see what B articles are close to GA. Then go to the article's comments page (go to talk page, and click Comments in the WPCFB banner; see this example) and add what needs to be done to get the article to GA/FA. I just did two or three.↔NMajdan•talk 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with "American football"

I noticed that Jmfangio has been changing page titles today using American football such as renaming Calvin Johnson (football player) to Calvin Johnson (American football). While I was a bit annoyed at first, I have to admit that after thinking about it, in the case of disambiguation, it does make a lot of sense to me to specify "American football" because even if there is no "soccer" player by that name, it would reduce confusion by those who see the disambiguation page to spell it out completely. Also, I like dropping "player" out of the page title because often times a player goes on to do other things (such as coach) within the sport. Anyway, I wanted to mention this here so it can be discussed, but personally, unless someone has a strong argument against it, I support this change.Gopherguy 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that for players, that's probably a better naming convention, particularly for the common names where there are plenty of soccer and football players with that name. But there is one move that I just noticed that I think is more annoying than anything else. Everything in Category:American football positions has been moved to have (American football) after it. I think that's a really bad idea. Only football has quarterbacks, long snappers, etc. Those pages don't need to be disambiguated and if this were any other topic area, it wouldn't even be an issue. Do we rename United States of America to United States of America (country) I moved running back back to the correct article name before I realized how widespread this was. After I saw that the entire category was moved, I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football to find out whether there is actually a reason for the move. --B 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find that he made the change to support an assumption of that format in his {{Infobox NFLactive}}. His solution to a particular template feature required that all positions that would be used in that templates position field be formatted that way. AUTiger » talk 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I read and replied to the discussion there. This is NOT an acceptable solution. We disambiguate because we have no other choice, not because it's convenient for a template. Either the template can link to a redirect page, users of the template can type four brackets, or the template can use parser functions for the 3 or 4 positions that actually are ambiguous. Renaming 30 articles for this is not acceptable. --B 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I support that change. 100% correct in my book. But changing school names to American football is ridiculous. Having, for instance, "Oklahoma Sooners American football" is a bad idea. Obviously, if you see that it is a team in Oklahoma, the American part is assumed. Just like we call our soccer team the United States men's national soccer team and not the United States men's national football team. With United States in the article title, having soccer is ok because we can assume what it means. Same thing for having Oklahoma or Michigan or any US State in the article title, American football is assumed.↔NMajdan•talk 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was about to bring up that team as well. I think Category:North_American_national_football_teams is particularly telling, showing the varying usage in the article name per the country-specific common-usage. See also Category:European_national_football_teams where XXX national football team is not disambiguated when there could in fact be confusion since there is an International Federation of American Football and IFAF World Cup. Suppose an American wanted to find out about the defending IFAF World Cup champ Japan and typed in Japan national football team? They'd end up reading about an association football team! (not obviously dabbed in the lede, btw) Oh, the HORRORS!! Someone should run over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and straighten them out. AUTiger » talk 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I support the person format when needed as well. AUTiger » talk 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you insist on making off-color remarks. The position change referenced earlier was not done to solve a "problem" with a template. So please don't make assumptions on my actions. As per the rest of the stuff, I'm going to stay out of this until you people can discuss things without making personally motivated points. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing personal against you, I am just responding to your actions. Are we to assume that you making a series of over 20 moves starting with Center[6] and ending with Placekicker[7] followed immediately by an edit to embed (American football)[8] in the {{Infobox NFLactive/sandbox}} template and finally a declaration that position "now works"[9] was all just a coincidence? AUTiger » talk 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your recent edit summary was completely uncalled for. And yes, your assumption is incorrect. The decision to move the articles did not allow me to hard code the template. The hard coding was done however to reflect those changes. I really don't see any reason to discuss anything else with you until you stop making agitating comments toward me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We should really stick with the simplest possible names. Virtually no one in the US says "football" when they mean "soccer". These teams in question are in the US and they call themselves "football" teams or "college football" teams, not "college American football" teams. Likewise, unless there is an American football player and a soccer player sharing the same name, we should stick to the simplest unambiguous name. In most cases, saying "football player" will accomplish this. Johntex\talk 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Wade Wilson (football) related to this issue after a move request was brought to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem using (American football) to disambig a player. Looking at a name, there is no way to tell if the player is an American football player or a football/soccer player. However, when it comes to schools, I am against using American football. The name of the US State is in the title so the American football is assumed.↔NMajdan•talk 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Not every college or university with a football team is a public institution or a "University of <state>." --ElKevbo 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: What about guy like Milt Stegall who just broke the CFL touchdown record. He is American who is best known for playing Canadian Football. He is from Ohio played at Miami University and a few years for the Cincinnati Bengals. He is kind of stuck in the middle. If there is another person with his name, how would you designate him? Milt Stegall (Canadian football) or Milt Stegall (American football) or Milt Stegall (football) or Milt Stegall (Football player) … 09er 21:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive-Jul2007&oldid=1144733831"