Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability/Archive 2

Players: 14-game requirement

I copied it over because someone else put it in, but I think that 14 games is a little thin for notability for a player. That's certainly the weakest rule--especially for offensive linemen or special teams who will not necessarily have any statistics or references to back up their game participation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What about media guides? I've used them and athletic department websites at times when drafting articles. In general, I'd agree with you, however. If we don't use a 14-game/one season rule, what would qualify? I like the idea of doing a numerical limit, simply because it's easy to understand and the border is clear. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found media guides to be an invaluable source for statistics. HEY that gives me an idea on the CFDW page--we're pulling statistics from that, not "point-of-view" information, so that would be even more strong for its purpose!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More on the 14-game requirement: I think this really should be pulled. If a college football player really is "notable" then they would achieve that notability not for playing 14 games, but for other categories that we already have as notable--win the Heisman, play in the NFL, become President of the United Staets... whatever... And besides, what's the big deal about "14 games?" Why not 15 or 13? It just seems to arbitrary to me... I guy I know was a punter for Div I Kansas State before the Bill Snyder era. Great guy, lousy punter--no one else would do it so he did it. Does that make him notable? Maybe, as the lowest-producing punter for four years of starting in college football history--but he achieved that in spite of the "14-game" requirement...--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Then axe it. I suggested it earlier as a minimum requirement, but there's no particular reason to have it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mascots and Pageantry

We've already got a number of articles about mascots, and quite a few about pageantry as well (Aggie Bonfire, Ramblin' Wreck). What's the best way to do a justification for that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I added two separate groups where it looked like they belonged--mascots under "individuals" and "Other Events" under special events. I also put in a blurb on "Marching Band" and referred to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band project, but also some notes on potential interaction such as The Play.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd also suggest including something on lists; we've gotten quite a few of them in the last few weeks, and it might be worthwhile to say that yes, they are notable if the school/team for which they are created is itself notable. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done much work with lists. I'd like for someone else to jump in on that one--but I'll do some resarch on wiki lists too!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll scribble something out, then. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronouns

Try to avoid the pronouns "our" and "we". Those imply ownership, and it's generally not a good idea to use them. Instead, refer to the project in the third person, as in "The project does not cover sprint football, junior college football, or club football." That's the main quibble I can see. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. When I'm writing this stuff, that's just how it comes out. Thanks for your edits!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)