Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

retired numbers in team navbox

Recall, years ago the CFB team navboxes were very dissimilar and inconsistent, and through much effort and consensus they are now very uniform. See Category:NCAA Division I FBS team navigational boxes. AND, there was a TfD discussion which deleted stand-alone templates of each school's retired numbers.

My search of the talk archive shows discussions around including retired numbers in our team navboxes, of which I believe this discussion from 2013 is the most recent discussion. Participation seems limited, but also seems to trend towards inclusion of retired numbers in the navbox.

Here are some of the options discussed to support retired numbers:

  1. Include as stand-alone navbox (now precluded by the TfD outcome, above)
  2. Include within the infobox (this runs counter to smaller infoboxes focussed on the most relevant content)
  3. Support via new, stand-alone row within existing team navbox (allows each number to link to the associated player article; player articles with retired numbers then include the team navbox which is slightly odd)
  4. Support within existing "People" row of the team navbox (new text link of "Retired numbers" points to corresponding section within main team article)
  5. Article-only (don't create a global nabov entry point)

FWIW, sibling projects lack a uniform execution:

I originally leaned to #3 (strong visuals of the actual player numbers and with direct links to each player), but now am leaning toward #4 (space efficient, presume not every school has retired numbers). Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Either No. 4 or No. 5. Unlike the NFL, where having your jersey retired is usually the highest honor, and thus only a few players are ever honored that way, it's not as clear cut in college. Its significance varies. LSU (which I'm using as an example not because of bias or an agenda, but because I'm familiar with the program) has only retired 2 jerseys, and their names and number are emblazoned in Tiger Stadium. Meanwhile, Kentucky retires the jersey of every player who participates in a Kentucky win. Lizard (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, Kentucky's retired the number 80 three times lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Lizard (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of option 5 above. Sure, let's detail retired numbers in the main program article. Option 1 and 3 lead to navbox clutter on bio articles. Option 2 is poor form for the infobox; retired numbers are not important enough to be detailed there. Option 4 is poor form for the team navbox. Links in a navbox should be to distinct articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
On the "people" row, should we include founding figures in it? Hard to think of somebody more deserving of inclusion in than navbox than say William Lofland Dudley for Vandy, or W. M. Riggs for Clemson. Cake (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Template for computing QB rating?

Is there a Template which computes the college QB rating formula, Passer rating#NCAA formula? My search didn't find one. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lol math and football. Try asking WP:MLB to make a QBR template for us. They love their ratios. Lizard (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Request is dying a slow death here Wikipedia:Requested templates#NFL and NCAA passing (quarterback) rating templates UW Dawgs (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems like it would be a pretty simple 3-minute thing to make for someone who knew what they were doing. Too bad I don't know how to do it lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

update team-season article notability documentation?

Does this section WP:CFBSEASON on individual season notability need to be updated?

Last year's multiple campaigns (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Single-season articles - proposed campaign and similar) to flatten program-by-coach-tenure articles and program-by-decade articles into stand-alone season articles, as well as create articles for missing seasons aricles for Top-20 programs, did not seem to involve discussion of notability. So we have articles for "every" season of many historic Top-20 programs. BTW, this was great for fellow haters of the Template:cfb link syntax and those who work in x-cfb list articles, where the sleding is much easier, now.

But as a result, we now have 1974 LSU Tigers football team covering a 5-5-1 season under HC Charles McClendon's 13th of 28 seasons at the helm, so someone might feel inclined to create 1932 New Mexico A&M Aggies with a 4–5–1 record under Jerry Hines' 4th of 11 seasons. And then the later ends up in AfD with a very predicatable food fight. (not trying to equate W-L with GNG, here, just trying to illustrate a notability issue) UW Dawgs (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression our plan was to create individual season articles for every university that ever has/had a football program. Why else would Template:Central Arkansas Bears football navbox or Template:Dayton Flyers football navbox have links for every season? Lizard (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I support that goal, but the Project doesn't get to locally define notability. So this might end in a house of cards issue across many of the new articles. Seen more favorably, college football is following the model used in the big four pro leagues. Related, does anyone's read of WP:Redirect let us create season year articles as redirects to the main articles as a starting point? (think no longer needing Template:cfb link vs WP:Redlinks encouraging creation of the season-year articles) UW Dawgs (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
My view is that single season articles for FBS programs would pretty clearly satisfy GNG standards. I have real doubt, however, as to whether such articles could pass GNG for the vast majority of lower tier programs. Some do, of course, but most would probably not. Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The thinking apparent in the assessment table is FBS and FCS are ok, while Division 3, NAIA, etc, probably need a reason for being. Cake (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I created redirects for Category:Arizona Wildcats football seasons articles which didn't exist. This makes it easier to edit list articles and avoid the CFB link template. Let me know if you object, otherwise Pac-12 programs may continue to be flushed out with redirects where there are article gaps. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

ColPollTable

Hey guys. I recently came across Template:ColPollTable and its subtemplates and decided to turn it into a more robust module. I have a test based on 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings in my sandbox. The main improvement is that instead of requiring different templates for each amount of weeks, I created a check that just looks for the highest week defined (currently, it supports 50 weeks, twice the highest count available currently). After a brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lua, Mr.S suggested I come here next to ask if ColPolTable is the desirable way to do things. This was part of my original concerns. These templates have relatively few transclusions, which leads me to believe there might be a superior template that you guys prefer instead.

A couple notes about the module: I thought it only went up to 20, but according to PI, it goes up to 25. And from the looks of it, 25 rows isn't always the desired amount. I can probably fix this to be as robust as the week definition, but I'd like to discuss how to proceed with you guys first. If there's reason to continue using this template, I'll gladly update the code. moluɐɯ 11:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This gets use in several of the college sports projects, which results in the number of weeks (columns) and teams (rows) varying pretty widely. Even though there's only one page using the template per sport (or division, in football) per season, the pages are relatively highly visible. It definitely would be easier to have the template hold the coding for these differences. Billcasey905 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I can definitely get it working then. Can you think of any reason to not have the module detect the highest second number defined in the "Week1-Y" parameters? That seems like it would be easiest and most straight forward way to rework this template. I'm not sure if there's any instance where the first week has any intentionally undefined parameters though. moluɐɯ 17:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I reworked the module to detect the highest number of rows needed. It's based off of Week1's data, so if any other week has a higher number of rows, those rows will be ignored. I did this because I'm assuming that all cells are always defined in a complete table. If there's any reason this won't work please tell me. Is there any other improvement that the module may need before it can be considered for replacing the old templates? moluɐɯ 10:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Ties for 25th is a situation where this logic might not work. Jhn31 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you have an example of this? And how it should appear? moluɐɯ 18:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:American college football All-Americans

This Template:American college football All-Americans nominally returns the All-American count for a given school, such as being embedded within the infobox of a team article. It appears to be out-of-date and/or omits schools (Arizona State Sun Devils football which isn't return anything vs an expected count of ~18). Yes/no? Do we have a page which flags templates which span the project and need annual review/refresh? UW Dawgs (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Table headings

I just created {{CollegePrimaryHeader}} and {{CollegeSecondaryHeader}} for creating colored table headings in team articles. you can see an example in an article in USC Trojans football statistical leaders. it currently supports a maximum of 6 columns, but that limit will be lifted once I have a chance to merge the core code with Module:College color. it supports a maximum of 50 columns. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, this is very helpful and also helps drive awareness and adoption of Module:College color. This in turn reduces usage of inline hex colors which occasionally change, or are incorrectly implemented as the University's academic colors. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This is very cool; thanks for doing it. Would it be possible to have the option to make the text color for the PrimaryHeader be the Secondary Color and vice-versa? This would also allow for the Primary and Secondary headers to be different for schools like Alabama, Mississippi State, Arkansas, etc., who use white as their secondary color - the secondary header could be a white box with crimson/maroon/cardinal text. Jhn31 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely a lot better than the thousands of bytes dedicated to hex colors. Although on a separate note the alternating colors between successive table headings looks a little tacky, but maybe that's just me. Lizard (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Nice work. No more align="center" bgcolor="" Cake (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I rolled this out to most of the Pac-12 pages, per Category:Pac-12 Conference teams. Meaning, unstyled tables were left as-is grey/grey, but inline sytled tables were generally updated with Template:CollegePrimaryHeader (top row, often), Template:CollegeSecondaryHeader (bottom row, infrequet) or via Template:CollegePrimaryHex and Template:CollegeSecondaryHex to simply replace the hard-coded hex value and stop the madness (looking at you, UA and ASU). Will be curious to see the user reaction and if they "get it."
The two biggest takeaways involved spanned cells, both in the footer summary row where summed data didn't exist for some columns such as names, notes, refs, and such, but then also via use of two header rows and spanned cells in the top of the two (ex, "Polls" spanning above "AP" and "Coaches", or centered string spanning all cells which were redundant to the section header string -looking at you, Oregon). Let's let this bake and see some feedback, but perhaps there is potential for some project-wide cleanup. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, can you provide a link to a colspan/rowspan example? there may be something we can do there. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, USC Trojans football#National titles (footer), Oregon Ducks football#Playoffs, or Arizona Wildcats football in "All time record versus Rivals". That area in both the Oregon link and Arizona Wildcats football#Divisional Championships have representative examples of col spanning. In most cases I think we need to remove a header row as being redundant to the section label, but optional spaning would a very nice enhancement to SecondaryCollegeHeader in particular -so we probably want to make the same modification to both templates to avoid editors gaming the system. Note, in many cases I was taking baby steps in the Pac-12 articles due to fear of ownership issues and reverts due to perceived big, mass changes. There is obvious room for cleaning of inline markup within all of these articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, I see. for table rows, which are not table headers, you can usually just style the entire row (as I am sure you discovered). we can definitely add the option colspans for each column heading. since most headers will span only one column, we could have say colspan2 = 3, which would mean the second column header spans 3 columns, with the default being a span of 1. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
added |col<NUM>span=. since footers should not use <th>...</th> we should have a separate template for those, if necessary. otherwise, just style the entire row. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Auto-tagging of articles

Would anyone be opposed to a bot auto-tagging all articles in Category:College football players in the United States with WikiProject College football's banner. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a no-brainer. I am assuming that it would do so for all of the school subcategories as well? Hey, if it's convenient could you make the request for Category:College men's basketball players in the United States and Category:College women's basketball players in the United States to be tagged with WP:CHOOPS as well? If that's a pain, can you direct me on how to do so? Rikster2 (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would tag all the subcat's as well. It's not my bot though, it's @BU Rob13:'s. So you could ask him and get consensus on the CHOOPS talk page. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the standard operating procedures can be found at User:Yobot#WikiProject_tagging. Do 1, 3, 5, 7 (i.e. have a discussion listing all desired sub-categories - NOT just a broad tree, unless it's extremely simple - and wait three days to see if consensus develops) and then ping me. I strongly encourage you not to do a broad tagging of something like Category:College football, as there's always underlying issues in the category trees, but something like Category:College football players in the United States is easy. It's also best to segment it; do a bit of tagging (players, for example), wait a bit, then come back for another round (coaches, for example). This allows anyone to object if they believe there's an issue or something's being tagged that shouldn't be. I can get a bot approval to allow me to do all tagging as requested by your project, so we won't have to go back to bot approvals for each round. ~ Rob13Talk 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: 1, 3, 5 and 7 seem to have been completed. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: This is ready to get started if you have some time. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I would support this, for both CFB player and coach articles. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Mind pinging me around Tuesday next week, WikiOriginal-9? I'm fairly busy until then. ~ Rob13Talk 00:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. There's no rush to tag the articles. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the articles, @BU Rob13:. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

College football in Japan...

This is interesting... Kantoh Collegiate American Football Association. Looks like college football is expanding!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tennessee–Martin Skyhawks which affects an article for this WikiProject. Your participation is requested. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"#13" or "No. 13" styling in 2016 conf standings templates

There is minor editing warring (example) in multiple conf templates in Category:2016 NCAA Division I FBS standings templates, with editors going back and forth on "#13 XYZ Wildcats" vs "No. 13 XYZ Wildcats" stlye in multiple conference standings templates.

MOS:NUMBERSIGN seems pretty clear to use "No. 13" style. -which looks weird to me from both Media Guide and broadcast TV perspectives. Also, the "Schedule" section within the 19xx XYZ Wildats football team articles seem to use the #13 format for team and opponent rankings. And now we have some mixed behavior within articles such as 2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team using both "No. 1" in the infobox and schedule section AND "#1" within the included 2015 SEC standings template -which is awful.

So this is a big mess from a consistency perspective. The Media Guides as source material for much of our historical content seem to (exclusive?) use the "#13" style in tables such as rankings and schedules. In prose, I'm guesing editors are likely writing in multiple ways ("...played thirteenth-ranked XYZ," "...played at #13 XYZ," etc).

Which do we prefer within the standings templates? If "#13," (which I think is more compatible with the existing articles which include standings templates), do we think we have an exception from MOS or that doesn't apply? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly we were using the pound sign in standings templates until recently the No. usage was used. Frankly I prefer the pound sign, but that is just my perspective.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I also prefer the pound sign. The "No. _" takes up a lot of undue space in an already crowded schedule template and looks awkward.Cbl62 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say that the pound sign was used in the season schedules, and the infoboxes for individual seasons. Did this change recently.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that MOS:NUMBERSIGN is explicit; personally I don't think "No." looks all that bad. There's also the situation that the pound symbol is used for notes in some tables: in the SEC standings template on 2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team it indicates national champion. Within the same row the pound sign means two entirely different things. I think it makes sense to use "No." throughout. Mackensen (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon review, clearly our historical consensus is to use #13 styling within the standings, per:

Waiting for a bit more feedback. Taking a stand on this seems to have much larger project implications, with possible downside to the contentious editing spreading to historical articles resulting in more inconsistency. I think, generally, the folks making the standings update the minute after the end of game are drive-by editors and not working on team or team-season articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "#XY" to "No. XY" across the board, personally. It's also generally the common style used across CFB and the media reporting on CFB related news. Just my .02 —  dainomite   22:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Have you met the MOS people? Lizard (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If we ask for an exception for sports, then we'd just as well ask them to remove the guideline entirely. "Use No. except for comic books and sports." Besides Billboard charts, that wouldn't leave much else that wasn't an exception. Lizard (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Single season article deletion

1908 Colorado Silver and Gold football team is up for deletion. (Not by me) Interested editors are encouraged to participate.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

assist with ongoing data cleanup project

We have a new minor data cleanup project, context shown at Template talk:Infobox NCAA team season#division string automatically on new line. The work involves removing a single <br> tag, while leaving the data intact.

So the old format: 

| conference        = Pac-12 Conference
| division          = <br /> South Division

Is updated to this format: 

| conference        = Pac-12 Conference
| division          = South Division

Here is the tracking Cat at Category:Pages using infobox NCAA team season with spurious br tag in division which shows articles in need of this change.

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That didn't take long. There were only like ten articles in that category. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Cat is filled automatically by ongoing bot discovery. So guessing it's 100+ ultimately (since we often copy the 20xx article to stub the new 20xx+1 article), but not sure of bot population frequency. Besides, if we all watch the pot, the water boils faster. ;) UW Dawgs (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yh, I just fixed some more. Some college basketball got thrown in there lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
700+ instances and growing. Will see if I can pull in a WP:AWB solution. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This is now resolved via WP:AWB with a Category filter. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Media Guides

Here is a SB nation compilation of all the media guides for the 2015 season. I believe some nuggets could be found in many of these.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Statistical leaders lists

Should we generally use top 10s. Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders uses top 20s? I am looking to add Amara Darboh who made his 11 career TD catch this past weekend and am thinking this threshold seems a bit low.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Media guides will vary in depth, so don't think there either is or should be a hard rule. Believe @Jhn31: has been the main driver of this page type and can comment. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I would favor limiting such lists to the top 10s. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The Michigan page was created about 5 years before I started making pages, so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes by making edits on it. Eventually I did decide to change the style of the Michigan article to fit the others, and added stats like total offense and kicking, but didn't change any underlying data. Considering how the 2 of the article's 3 main editors have already advocated limiting it to top 10s only on this thread, I'm inclined to agree with them.Jhn31 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

TfD feedback

Not 100% sure what Template:Florida State college football champions pre-1910 navbox is. Possibly this is 1901-1909 independents in Florida with the best record? UW Dawgs (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Before a program competed for national championships, or conference championships, they played for state championships. It's why some programs, such as Tennessee will note that it's first conference championship was the first of any kind (i. e., before then, no state titles), or various places note state titles (e. g. the 1890 Nebraska article). The 1893 Auburn Tigers team picture, for instance, has a football labeled "Champions Ala & Ga" (presumably Georgia Tech were also Georgia state champs). Florida was in the college football game relatively late, and I managed to dig deep enough to know all the state titles before UF joined the SIAA in 1912 (UF was best team in the state in 10, 11, 12,...) It would be 1901-1909 independents in Florida with the best record against other teams in Florida. Cake (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

recruiting section on team articles

In 2013, this UofO IP Special:Contributions/128.223.223.221 helped give us the semi-adopted and uncited "Scout.com" recruiting rankings, as still seen at:

The hallmarks are a display table without a border, use of Scout.com exclusively, lack of any citations, and player names as text rather than links. I'm not opposed to a recruiting section, but not as an uncited table of names/numbers. Before being Bold, any other opinions on keep/fix vs remove for now? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Starting quarterback navbox

Now that there are quarterback navboxes for every FBS team, along with several FCS and lower teams, would it be appropriate to have a single navbox for all current starting quarterbacks? Using the same format of the NFL one, I made this rough draft:

I could see some arguments either way on whether a navbox like this appropriate -- on the con side, there are many redlinks on the page, and quarterback situations can vary from week to week. On the other hand, by limiting it to P5 only (and then anyone else notable listed below), any redlinks that appear should be notable enough to have an article, and there's not as much to update regularly. Jhn31 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I weakly oppose. While I think it is a novel idea. I could see the argument that we shouldn't stop at the power five schools, and it would need to be expanded to all FBS programs. Also, I think it would need to be updated more frequently than one would imagine. Then are we going to include coaches, coordinators, etc. Perhaps conference QBs could be an option but there already has been deletion of certain types of conference navboxes, (consortiums, current team seasons, past year team seasons etc.)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is better served by content that grows and becomes more or less permanent. This content changes week-to-week, season-to-season. I do realize NFL project does this (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).—Bagumba (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
'Comment I don't even like the NFL QB navbox. Cake (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose College quarterbacks aren't inherently notable, so some of those red links will never be blue. Lizard (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Florida–UCF football rivalry which affects an article for this WikiProject. Your participation is requested. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Big Sky Questions and general small college questions

I have noticed something peculiar on some early Category:Big Sky Conference football standings templates and it reminds me of a few questions.

-ThoughtsUCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Narrowly re Idaho, pg 182 2015 Media Guide has conf affiliations and Idaho Vandals football infobox is definitely incomplete re early years including Independent and 1905 "Northwest". UW Dawgs (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
UCO2009bluejay, it seems that Idaho joined the Big Sky Conference as a charter member in 1963, but did not compete in the conference in football until 1965. I think Idaho should probably not be listed in Template:1963 Big Sky football standings or Template:1964 Big Sky football standings. Notre Dame certainly does not belong in the ACC standings. They are an independent in football.
As for the inter-divisional games you've noted above, the standard generally seems to be not to explicitly note it in the schedule tables, unless it is to clarify a ranking. The style used at 1985 Idaho Vandals football team and other Idaho season articles is largely the work of User:Glacier109 and seems to be anomalous.
What's the issue with 2014 Montana State Bobcats football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the 1-0 Idaho row from the 1963 Big Sky standings, per above and pg 184. Idaho now first appears in the 1965 standings, consistent with both the inline comment in the infobox of the main article and pg 184. See List of Big Sky Conference football standings as helpful. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: Do we typically put breaks in between conference and non-con and postseason games? (I am not totally against the regular/postseason.)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Drayton McLane Baseball Stadium at John H. Kobs Field

so a question......The above is Michigan State's current baseball stadium and a Wikipedia article currently exists for it. John H. Kobs field inside the stadium was formerly known as Old College Field where Michigan State (or the Aggies as they were known then) played their football games from 1900-1922. My guess is to wait for someone to write an article about Old College Field (or should we link the baseball stadium to the appropriate football articles)?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand the description (it is the same structure used in football, not just location), you could
UW Dawgs (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
there really was no structure back then, the field was used for baseball and football until the football stadium was built elsewhere. The name of the field as I understand it remained as College Field until named for Kobs in 1969. Renovations in 2009 created the stands, etc.........I've changed the language as much as I dare for the above article right now until I get more feedback......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Identical situation to Gamble Field which was a general use athletic field (fb and baseball) and a center for university gatherings. Sounds like you should expand the existing article with football content, rather than creating a new article. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
not identical, CU has a new building (not sports related) on the old site of Gamble, and MSU is still referring to Old College Field as the current home for baseball and soccer, but it sounds like there are separate stands for each sport from a recent renovation.....reading some more, Old College Field is a term they still use on campus for baseball, softball, and soccer but it looks like now each sport has its own place with separate facilities within it. May be a new article is warranted.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I got it right for Old College Field......I'd be open for comments....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Season articles campaign - update

Last year, we started the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign. In 2015, we created more than 3,500 new season articles. So far in 2016, we have created another 1,900 articles, including articles for every season played by 48 programs. There are still a number of Power 5 programs that need to be filled out, including Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, California, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Ole Miss, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, TCU, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, Washington State, and West Virginia. Volunteers willing to contribute to the effort are welcome and appreciated.

Some have expressed concerns about the creation of sub-stub articles that consist of no more than an infobox, standings chart, and a single sentence of introductory text. Ideally, a season article should include (a) reliable sources (hopefully, with formatting that is not a mere bare url); (b) infobox including as much of the data as can be found; (c) standings chart if the team was part of a conference; (d) schedule/results chart; and (e) meaningful narrative text describing as much of the following as can be found: win-loss record (conference and non-conference); conference membership and finish; points scored/allowed; head coach and year of service; records set; championship claims; bowl games; rankings in the final AP and Coaches polls; significant player and coach honors and awards (including all-conference, All-American); team captain; MVP awards; name of home field/stadium; and key team statistical leaders (readily available on SR/College Football for modern era). As the articles progress further, full rosters and game summaries are also helpful. While we haven't adopted a minimum standard for article creation, and each person should do what he or she is capable of doing. Collaboration toward incremental improvement is key. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranking colors

What is the color scheme we are using for a team's week-to-week ranking chart for unranked teams receiving votes? The first week a team receives votes, is that no change in ranking (white), previously unranked (yellow), or improvement in ranking (green)? If a team received votes last week but is now ranked in the top 25 is that previously unranked (yellow) or an improvement in ranking (green)? Similarly, if a team received votes last week but did not this week, is that a drop in ranking (red), or no change in ranking (white). Can RV be considered a "ranking" of 26 for the purposes of coloring these charts? My understanding is that RV is still "unranked".

For examples, see 2016 Big Ten Conference football season#Rankings. Specifically, are Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, and Wisconsin colored per policy? Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  Pre Wk
2		 Wk
3		 Wk
4		 Wk
5		 Wk
6		 Wk
7
Springfield Yo-yos RV = "26" RV 25 24 25 RV
RV = NR RV 25 24 25 RV
Legend
    Improvement in ranking
  Drop in ranking
  Not ranked previous week
  No change in ranking from previous week
RV Received votes but were not ranked in Top 25 of poll

ESPN College Football on ABC results

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN College Football on ABC results in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Florida Sports Hall of Fame

Template:Florida Sports Hall of Fame has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami–Nebraska football rivalry

I have nominated this football rivalry for deletion. It has only been contested 12 times, there is no trophy, and the article is unsourced. pbp 21:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Rivalry?

Is this seriously notable enough to be a rivalry? It's three. years. old. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Of the four refs, only one (a blog) suggests that the matchup might in fact be a "rivalry". I'd say - no, certainly not yet. JohnInDC (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks... I'll give it another week. If no else replies with an objection saying it is notable, I'll go through the process of deleting it. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the UConn-UCF "rivalry" similar?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Pvmoutside:, I would say so... from what I'm gathering, UConn's coach randomly started it and even says they "don't need UCF's permission" to start one, but UCF says "no rivalry" exists.
UConn - UCF went to AfD, here, with "no consensus". Perhaps now a year later it would stand a better chance at deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
As silly as it is, you probably wouldn't win that argument. Deletion discussions for rivalries almost never pass, because we still have no project-wide agreement on what constitutes a rivalry. Thus, all we have to go by is GNG, and nearly every "rivalry" will pass GNG because some sportswriter somewhere is bound to call a certain game a rivalry, and that's good enough. And the fact that the rivalry is named and has a trophy almost guarantees its rivalry status here. Lizard (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm. The "trophy" appears to have been commissioned and paid for by the coach who conceived of the so-called rivalry; and virtually all the coverage of the matchup talks about how it isn't a rivalry, rather than is - this contrivance may be notable by reason of the skeptical coverage and ridicule it has garnered, but not because it's actually a "rivalry". I think the article is mis-named and adopts the POV of the U-Conn coach. But that is, I suppose, an argument for another day - JohnInDC (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

National Titles listing years in Info boxes

Such wikis such as Alabama Crimson Tide football, Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, Pittsburgh Panthers football list national titles years in the info box. When is the line drawn for the years being listed to many? I made edits to Michigan, USC, UCLA, Minnesota, and Illinois to the same style of the other universities by listing the national titles years in the info box. When Alabama is listing 16 claimed national titles and 4 unclaimed, Notre Dame is listing 11 claimed national titles and 11 unclaimed national titles etc... Then Michigan edits of listing only the 11 claimed national titles is too many to have in the info box is something I believe we need to address. I agree I can see how listing that many years in the info box can be seen as too much information for the panel, at the same time when you have other universities with more information listen when is it too much? Any thoughts on this would be welcomed to help make the template for College Football wikis to be in the same style for info boxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerFrosty (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at some of the men's basketball infoboxes (Duke, Kentucky, Indiana, UCLA), I'm surprised to learn that there's an effort to keep the information brief at all. We list tournament appearances there! I say list 'em. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is not typically a good argument. Infoboxes should be brief. Only information vital to the understanding of the article should be listed in it. Obviously that's subjective, but let's try to set a better example and hope other projects follow, instead of adopting the bad habits of those other projects. Lizard (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't find the year-by-year listings to be particularly useful, and cluttery, when the number nudges up into double digits. It's - just a long, hard-to-scan stream of numbers. I don't feel all that strongly about it, but do believe that infoboxes are the most useful when a reader can take in the info in them in a glance, which you really can't with a list of a dozen or so years jammed up next to one another. JohnInDC (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The college basketball infoboxes are a disaster. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess every project has its quirks. I think it's a disaster for Derek Anderson to have four navboxes for various starting QB jobs and another just for being a draft pick of a franchise. Rikster2 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Then you'd love Vinny Testaverde's page. Hey, at least we understand navbox clutter is a problem. We used to have navboxes for punters, kickers, and long snappers. Lizard (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I like the quarterback navboxes a lot more than team/year draft picks ones. Also, I think I am in the minority for it, but I wouldn't mind something like. say, underlining conference championship seasons and italicizing unclaimed NCs in the college football team navboxes. Cake (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Blargh. Simplicity, lad. Lizard (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: Anderson, could his Cardinals or Panthers years be dealt with in a special category like the "other" category at the bottom of Georgia Tech's list removing him from those navboxes? Just a thought. Cake (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Steve Abbott

Not directly related to this project, per se, but of tangential interest to some members here as a former NCAA Division I athletic director. Please see: here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Stanford 1906 thru 1918

Unless there are any objections, I am going to remove the Stanford football team pages from 1906 thru 1918 as they played rugby rather than American football......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove them from where? Lizard (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
He might be talking about the navbox, but the rugby years are already whited out on there. At List of Stanford Cardinal football seasons it already says there was no team as they played rugby. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Pvmoutside, if you are talking about Template:Stanford Cardinal football navbox, we generally leave non-played years in these navboxes, but grayed out to drive home the game in play. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the infoboxes at the top of the page. They referred to the rugby pages. I've changed the dates to bypass the rugby pages.....Pvmoutside (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

HOF navboxes

The Pro hall of fame seems to have all kinds of navboxes. This isn't "other stuff exists" but merely posing the question, should we also have our version of e. g. this? Cake (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually not a fan of that one, and wouldn't be opposed if it ended up at TfD. Lizard (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's go easy on the navboxes, particular ones that will be transcluded on bio articles. We should be looking for ones to deleted, not new ones to create. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough Weiss, for I might be the chief culprit. However, I did not wish this just to be a discussion on adding them. Should that one be deleted, like Lizard prefers? Should we have our own navboxes for each CFBHOF induction year like the pros? Should we delete the QB navboxes, might we add one like the above? Etc. Anyway, for another but related topic, I wish the list of CFBHOF inductees had positions. Cake (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Would be nice, but when it comes to some of the older players I feel like it'd be original research on our part to assign positions. Even the pro QB navbox has some dubious ones. Players like Jimmy Conzelman and Arnie Herber were more often referred to as blocking backs or tailbacks. Those positions were obviously progenitors to the modern quarterback, but they weren't actually quarterbacks. Although Herber can be said to be the first pure passing back in the NFL (having Hutson to throw it to certainly helped) I'm not sure he was ever referred to as a "quarterback" during his playing days. Lizard (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Eh, at least with college guys, I don't really get confused until you go so far back you talk about "centre rushes" and "forwards". It's also fine to put "blocking back" as the position. Cake (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

College Rankings in yearly team pages

As I'm going thru some of the latter years in the yearly team pages, and if someone is interested, it seems some of the college football yearly rankings are off, and some are missing. I'd try to update but don't know where to look on a year to year basis......I suppose can always be corrected later.......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Pvmoutside, are you talking about year-end ranking in the infoboxes, or weekly rankings in the schedule tables, or both? I have the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia, published in 2005. It has week-by-week rankings up through 2004. Can you point out which articles you think have missing or erroneous rankings? Maybe, compile a list and I will check them? I've been slowly working my way through the bowl game articles, fixing/completing rankings in the infoboxes there. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
They are the weekly rankings on the schedule pages......For example these are some of the Vanderbilt pages:
  • DATE VANDY opponent rank Opponent opponent rank
  • OCT 14 2000 Georgia 14 Georgia 13
  • OCT 17 1998 Georgia 13 Georgia 14
  • SEPT 5 1996 Notre Dame 6 Notre Dame 7
  • OCT 13 1990 Auburn 6 Auburn 2

Maybe they are just typos, but thought I would share the ones I found for Vandy......not sure of the other schools, but I'll keep an eye now that I know a few of them are off......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Auburn was ranked #6 in the AP Poll on October 13, 1990 going into the Vandy game. The ranking is correct at 1990 Vanderbilt Commodores football team is correct, although the poll used in not specified in the footer of the table there, as it should be. 1990 Auburn Tigers football team had a number of erroneous rankings, which I just fixed. The correct ranking were there from 2011 when the table was standardized until last year when User:Tiger34-28 introduced the errors. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The issue with Notre Dame in 1996 is that 1996 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team use Coaches Poll rankings while 1996 Vanderbilt Commodores football team use AP Poll rankings. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Jweiss11! Moving forward, since some yearly results use the coaches poll and others use the AP poll, I think I'll leave teams unranked as I create schedules, since I don't have access......It would be wonderful and appreciated for someone to follow behind and add rankings (or anything else) for those teams as appropriate....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

AFCA National Championship selectors

Keep in this in mind a lot of things may need to be updated soon [1].UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you guys have standardized on the AP Poll and not the Coaches Poll for yearly results?......Pvmoutside (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This and that are 2 different things. Lizard (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Citrus Bowl, others

When I look at the yearly schedules (team infoboxes, bowl games, etc), I see what on the surface seems to be a duplicate listing. When you click on the link, you see one is the stadium, the other is a bowl game. To eliminate confusion to someone not familiar with the football pages, I'd like to add the word "Stadium" to the corresponding stadiums for visual purposes only. The articles themselves will be left alone. I know the 3 listed above do not have "stadium" in their proper name, but I think it does eliminate a little confusion.......Thoughts?Pvmoutside (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the appropriate format for a team season article?

Is there a good example of one that should be considered the "gold standard" that every other should try to emulate? Maybe 2014 Ohio State Buckeyes football team or 2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team? We really should standardize these pages. This is probably too big of a thing to just settle it here on the talk page with a few replies, but maybe we could appoint a workgroup of 5-10 interested editors to come up with a standardized template for team season articles? I think we should address exactly what belongs on these pages, the exact format and order of each item, maybe streamline some roster/depth chart templates, etc. Jhn31 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Notice on even on the two good articles I referenced, the order isn't the same, the game-by-game infobox format doesn't match, Ohio State doesn't have a depth chart grid (although Alabama's depth chart grid is really bulky — maybe we need a new one of those), etc. Jhn31 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Jhn31, thanks for bringing this up. This is an important issue and one we should resolve. I'd like to be involved in this effort to standardize the format. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format remains largely unchanged since 2007 is no longer up to date with what has evolved in practice. One place to start may be to merge Template:AFB game box start (1835 transclusions) and associated templates with Template:Americanfootballbox (1103 transclusions). This is a fork that need to addressed. That would also affect other American football-related WikiProjects like WP:NFL. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jweiss11 it makes more since to have all the pages to be uniform with each other. If you look at a page from 1897 and one from 2016 they should look and read in the same way. They can not look one way for team A and then another on team B. MDSanker 01:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to be involved also, at least from a schedules perspective. I've updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format for schedules (adding rivalries/bowl games, attendance and a header) without changing anything else. I'll follow that format slowly moving forward, and changing past articles as time allows. It looks nicer to have a standard format as it will become increasingly difficult to standardize as more yearly team pages get created both historically and moving into the future. (Q1:should am and pm in the time column be capitalized or small case with or without periods when we have them-templates follow small case with periods for a.m and p.m), Q2: should rankings follow AP poll, coaches poll, or both? Q3:Is there a bot someone can write to create/maintain content for any/all of the article?.......Pvmoutside (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Assist with early Arizona Wildcats football team articles

We're working through the team article creation backlog on Arizona, and hit some naming convention issues in 1899~1913. See Category:Arizona Wildcats football seasons and linked below.

  • The student newspaper give us

    Many of Arizona's traditions come courtesy of the football team. The first Arizona football team took the field in 1899 under the nickname "Varsity." Up to that point, the UA's official colors were sage green and silver. That year, however, team manager Quintus J. Anderson found a deal he couldn't pass up. A local merchant gave him a good offer on solid blue jerseys with red trim. Anderson quickly requested that those colors be adopted by the school. 'They fought like wildcats' In 1914 Bill Henry of the Los Angeles Times was covering a game between the UA Varsity and Occidental in California. The UA lost, but Henry's story reported that "the Arizona men showed the fight of wildcats." The student body quickly adopted the nickname and the UA "Varsity" has been the Wildcats ever since.

The first varsity squad of Wildcats, not so nicknamed for many years to come...

So we're trying to determine article names, inclusive of nicknames (if any), for the articles currently implemented at:

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Pretty much every team in those days had a freshman team and a "varsity" team. Those weren't official nicknames, but rather mere statements of descriptive fact. An article from the student newspaper written years after the fact is not really IMO a reliable source for the proposition that the team was officially nicknamed "Varsity". Far more likely that "varsity" was a descriptive term, much as it was for virtually every other football team in this era. I researched the matter and could not find any contemporaneous references suggesting that the 1899 or early 1900s teams had an official nickname of Varsity. Moreover, a 1938 history of the early years is consistent with the notion that there was no official nickname and that the "varsity" (lower case) is a descriptive term rather than an official nickname "The first varsity squad of Wildcats, not so nicknamed for many years to come . . ." This leaves me with the conclusion that the articles should either be named: "190x Arizona football team" or "190x University of Arizona football team". I am fine with either, though the vanilla Arizona title seems ambiguous since it is also the name of the state and could be ambiguous without a clearer description. Cbl62 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • A search of newspapers.com for the years from 1899 to 1913 shows a grand total of 14 hits for the phrase "Arizona varsity" and "football". If "Varsity" was an official nickname, there would be scores (hundreds, really, of hits). Moreover, the hits that are found seem to use the term in the descriptive sense of the word rather than as an official nickname. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Other article from these years use Arizona Varsity with initial caps, but those instances are in headlines where the whole headline is in initial caps.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Antonio Penn

Would someone from WP:CFB mind taking a look at Antonio Penn and see if he's notable enough for a stand-alone article. Just going by the four references currently given, he does not seem to meet WP:BIO, but I'm not sure about WP:NGRIDIRON since he apparently currently under contract with the Arena Developmental League. That seems to be a new league, and it's not clear if it will qualify as a "top-level professional league". -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Rivalries...

Is this rivalry notable? It's unsourced for one... which leads me to ask why are we creating articles with no sources to back it up? Especially by experienced editors (Rick lay95)... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 13:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly needs work, but Why does Rice play Texas adds a unique twist to notability of a football rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't researched newspapers, but the series has been ongoing for more than 100 years with 94 games played. So, it has longevity and frequency in its favor. It is also an in-state series between schools with elite academic reputations. Although the series hasn't been competitive in the last 50 years, it was quite competitive from the 1930s through the 1950s. A quick search turns up this. With these factors weighing in its favor, I suspect we'd find sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG if a rigorous search were undertaken. Cbl62 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, notability isn't temporary. I'd imagine if you asked someone living in Texas around 1960 if the Rice-Texas rivalry was notable they'd look at you like you were stupid. Mostly because they'd have no idea what "Wikipedia" is, but also because at the time, the schools had played each other every year over the previous few decades and the record was nearly dead even. There's bound to be something around then to support the rivarly. Lizard (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

additional early years standingss template now available

As part of our team article work, we lacked some of the early standings templates used by Independent teams. Where missing, these templates now exist in 1869-1921. Meaning, if you're creating an early 18xx~1921 article for an Independent, you're able to include this template in the article and update the template with the team's record. And certainly add these templates to existing articles and the teams' record to the template itself.

See Category:NCAA Division I FBS independents football records templates, like Template:1902 college football records.

Known issues:

  • Stack order may be off in some cases (7-0-1, 6-0-0, 3-3-3, 2-2-3, 2-3-3). Best efforts, but I'm not a baseball guy who does this on the fly regularly.
  • Template naming convention might need to be revisited. Ex 1905 Stanford football team reads "1905 college football records" which is vague, for better or worse. This is a pre-existing issue.
  • These live the Category:NCAA Division I FBS independents football records templates using the modern "Div I FBS' naming. This is clearly wrong for standings from this era and also a pre-existing issue.
  • I'm not sure what season year will have the most, but display length might become an issue when flushed out with all Independents for a given year.

List of Division I FBS independents football standings is helpful for review, as well. I'm sure more eyeballs will help correct and refine. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Might need to separate by region either within the table or with several tables. Cake (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD: 2007 Backyard Brawl

I have nominated 2007 Backyard Brawl for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

early USC nickname(s)

There is a discussion at Talk:USC Trojans football#early USC nickname.28s.29 in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Team logos

I've come across several teams now where the current logo is being used in historical team articles. Please do not insert the current wordmark/logo into the teams unless it is a known fact that the logo was used in that season. It is misleading to the people who visit that article. If you want some help, please refer to www.sportslogos.net for some guidance. They are pretty accurate (that I've found), but just like everything else, it isn't perfect. It is better to have no logo than a misleading logo in the articles. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yh, the only logos that should used on team season articles is the logos they used that particular season. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD: 2016 Tennessee vs. Georgia football game

I've nominated 2016 Tennessee vs. Georgia football game for deletion. See discussion here. Lizard (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Bobby Harris (gridiron football)"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Bobby Harris (gridiron football)#Requested move 11 October 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  u/c 22:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The two Alexander Durleys

Hi: Strange situation here. I came across Alexander Durley, an article on a head football coach at Prairie View A & M and Texas Southern, when writing and improving articles for whom another Alexander Durley is relevant, a head football coach at the high-school level in Beaumont, Texas. The existing article didn't mention his election to the conference hall of fame and was under-referenced, and had biographical details that belong to the high-school coach. I've now rewritten it, eliminating that material and adding more references. I was doubtful about his notability, and the mass AfD of which it was part ended no consensus, but going through "What links here" for links meant for the other Durley has shown me that this WikiProject considers all college head coaches notable; plus he has the hall of fame. However, I can't find anything at all of a biographical nature, except that he was also a math professor and his family "still" lived in the Third Ward (presumably in Houston) after his death. No birth or death year in anything I could turn up. Can anyone here find anything? The erroneous material was added after the AfD, in good faith, but is clearly not on that Alexander Durley. The college coach, on the other hand, has an obituary of sorts that appeared in papers in the region, and some extensive mentions because of the significance of his second statewide title (first-year win by a brand-new integrated school). His first also turns out to have been a milestone (first UIL win by a black school after UIL integration). Both have stadiums named after them. I've written up the high-school coach at User:Yngvadottir/Alexander Durley (high-school coach). I honestly don't know whether he is notable enough to have an article. Please pass on this inquiry to any other relevant sports project. My thinking is that, especially since there is so little coverage of the college coach, if the high-school coach is notable enough for the article to be mainspaced, the college coach article should be moved to also have a disambiguator. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks for your research on this. I'm finding more on the older Alexander Durley, the college coach. Seems he played at Texas College under Ace Mumford and was then head coach there before moving to Texas Southern. I wonder if the younger the Alexander Durley (1937–1984) is his son. He was born in Pittsburg, Texas in 1937, not far from Tyler, Texas, where the older Durley was attending college a few years prior. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The younger Durley's dad was named Bose. Maybe the older was an uncle of the younger. Lizard (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This may be a picture of two Durleys together, the younger one playing quarterback for the older at Texas Southern: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?spot=7289350. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I can only dimly see that, but the guy on the right does seem to resemble his picture in the Texas Monthly article about the West Brook win: p. 157. Thanks for the newspaper.com clippings; all search was giving me as a non-subscriber was the elder Durley's teams meeting up with Tennessee. Does anyone have any thoughts on notability or otherwise of the high-school coach Durley? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Rosters and depth charts

I'm not a huge fan of the "standard" roster template, such as the one that appears on 2015 Auburn Tigers football team, as it's very wide/non-compact, doesn't sort by position or who actually played, and the redshirt icons don't have consistent use - does the icon mean the player redshirted THAT year (in which case they really shouldn't be listed with the players who played anyway), or that they redshirted at some point in the past (which may not really be relevant enough to include in the chart, at least not in such an eye-popping way). On top of that, there's the awful depth chart grids, which also appears on that Auburn page, which takes up a lot of space and varies from week to week anyway.

I think we should develop a template similar to the NFL roster template, and within each position group, sort by the number of starts (then games played) for each position, so you know who started and played the most often. If it were possible to sort by total snaps, I'd be fine with that, but I doubt that information is readily available, but every team tracks starts and total games. I also banished the redshirts off to the side, so they're recognized as part of the team, but not spread among the people who played. This is just a mockup, not an actual proposal. I'm just throwing an idea out there for how to save space and still show relevant information. Obviously, some of the headings will have to change.

Thoughts? Jhn31 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Quarterbacks (QB)

Running backs (RB)

  • 10 Brandon Holloway, JR (13/8)
  • 32 Ashton Shumpert, JR (12/5)
  • 27 Aeris Williams, FR (13/0)
  • 33 Dontavian Lee, FR (10/0)
  • 37 Bennie Braswell III, SO (1/0)

Wide receivers (WR)

  • 1 De'Runnya Wilson, JR (13/13)
  • 5 Fred Brown, JR (13/13)
  • 8 Fred Ross, JR (13/13)
  • 6 Donald Gray, SO (13/0)
  • 86 Jesse Jackson, FR (12/0)
  • 16 Joe Morrow, SR (11/0)
  • 22 Malik Dear, FR (11/0)
  • 35 Gabe Myles, SO (10/0)
  • 83 Kareem Vance Jr., SO (2/0)
  • 89 Javous Nicks, JR (2/0)

Tight ends (TE)

  • 19 Gus Walley, JR (8/7)
  • 84 Darrion Hutcherson, SR (13/6)
  • 81 Justin Johnson, FR (11/0)
  • 80 Aaron Hamaker, FR (3/0)
 Offensive linemen (OL)
  • 62 Devon Desper, JR (13/13)
  • 70 Justin Malone, SR (13/13)
  • 58 Justin Senior, JR (12/12)
  • 60 Jamaal Clayborn, JR (12/12)
  • 77 Rufus Warren, SR (11/11)
  • 74 Elgton Jenkins, FR (11/3)
  • 61 Deion Calhoun, FR (13/1)
  • 71 Cole Carter, JR (13/0)
  • 78 Damien Robinson, SR (13/0)
  • 64 Jocquell Johnson, JR (7/0)
  • 72 Ronald Cochran, FR (4/0)

Defensive linemen (DL)

  • 47 A. J. Jefferson, JR (13/13)
  • 98 Chris Jones, JR (13/13)
  • 48 Ryan Brown, SR (12/12)
  • 88 Nick James, JR (13/10)
  • 94 Nelson Adams, JR (13/3)
  • 97 Johnathan Calvin, JR (13/1)
  • 49 Torrey Dale, JR (13/0)
  • 57 Will Coleman, JR (13/0)
  • 34 Cory Thomas, FR (8/0)
  • 95 Braxton Hoyett, FR (7/0)
  • 90 Grant Harris, FR (5/0)
 Linebackers (LB)
  • 39 Richie Brown, JR (13/13)
  • 42 Beniquez Brown, JR (13/13)
  • 14 Zach Jackson, SR (11/8)
  • 4 Gerri Green, FR (13/1)
  • 28 DeAndre Ward, JR (13/0)
  • 45 J. T. Gray, SO (13/0)
  • 51 Kelan Chairs, SO (12/0)
  • 46 Dezmond Harris, SO (7/0)
  • 29 Josiah Phillips, FR (1/0)
  • 30 Hayes Walker, FR (1/0)

Defensive backs (DB)

  • 11 Kivon Coman, JR (13/13)
  • 23 Taveze Calhoun, SR (12/11)
  • 7 Tolando Cleveland, JR (13/10)
  • 20 Brandon Bryant, FR (13/8)
  • 2 Will Redmond, SR (7/7)
  • 26 Kendrick Market, SR (4/4)
  • 12 Jamal Peters, FR (12/2)
  • 17 Deontay Evans, JR (13/1)
  • 24 Chris Rayford, FR (13/0)
  • 5 Cedric Jiles, JR (12/0)
  • 9 Jamoral Graham, SO (12/0)
  • 41 Mark McLaurin, FR (12/0)
  • 44 Brandon Davis, JR (3/0)

Special teams

  • 25 Westin Graves, SO (13/0) K
  • 43 Logan Cooke, SO (13/0) P
  • 40 Devon Bell, SR (13/0) P/K
  • 53 Hunter Bradley, JR (12/0) LS
  • 38 Winston Chapman, SR (2/0) LS
  • 66 Joel Baldwin, FR (1/0) LS
  • 30 Zak Neary, FR (2/0)

Reserve

  • 3 Traver Jung, JR (LB)
  • 10 Nathan Gieb, FR (ATH)
  • 11 Damian Williams, JR (QB)
  • 14 Nick Tiano, FR (QB)
  • 16 Elias Cane, FR (ATH)
  • 18 Deddrick Thomas, FR (WR)
  • 21 Nick Gibson, FR (RB)
  • 23 Keith Mixon, FR (WR)
  • 26 Alec Murphy, FR (RB)
  • 27 Lee Jackson, FR (ATH)
  • 30 Chris Stamps, FR (DB)
  • 31 Maurice Smitherman, FR (DB)
  • 34 Alan Worsham, FR (ATH)
  • 37 Bryce Brown, FR (ATH)
  • 37 Danortis McWilliams, FR (ATH)
  • 43 Fletcher Adams, FR (DL)
  • 44 Leo Lewis, FR (LB)
  • 44 Chase Jones, FR (ATH)
  • 50 Tim Washington, FR (LB)
  • 54 Lawrence Brown, JR (ATH)
  • 55 Martinas Rankin, JR (OL)
  • 56 Allen Perkins, FR (ATH)
  • 56 Nick Proby, SR (ATH)
  • 67 Michael Story, FR (OL)
  • 68 Devin Hadley, FR (ATH)
  • 69 Darryl Williams, FR (OL)
  • 73 Rodney Lacy, JR (ATH)
  • 75 Harrison Moon, FR (OL)
  • 79 Evans Wilkerson, FR (ATH)
  • 76 Jake Thomas, SO (OL)
  • 80 T.J. Flinta, FR (ATH)
  • 82 Farrod Green, FR (TE)
  • 82 Jefferson Teel, SO (ATH)
  • 85 Jonnas Spivey, FR (WR)
  • 91 Anfernee Mullins, FR (DL)
  • 92 Kendell Jones, FR (DL)
  • 92 Brian Houston, JR (ATH)
  • 99 Keith Joseph Jr., FR (DL)


Rookies in italics 
active

Related to the following, I added an infbobox to AP Poll with links to the 2016 FB/BB/WBB/Base poll articles.

The issue I'm raising relates to viewing a 2016 CFB team article (2016 Alabama Crimson Tide football team) and viewing the conferences standings (Template:2016 SEC football standings) therein, where our footer reads:

"As of October 23, 2016; Rankings from AP Poll".


From that linked AP Poll article, it's still an unintuitive chore to get to the 2016 poll article and content.

So perhaps the standings footer text should be modified (two links?), such as:

"As of October 23, 2016; Rankings from 2016 AP Poll"


where the new 2016 link points to 2016 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings article which contains the AP, Coaches, and CFP rankings. Note, some standing templates have both AP and Coach poll #s, and these poll articles contain both polls, so article context is not an issue if we implement a link such as this.

If visuals are helpful, 2016 NCAA Division I FBS football season#Conference standings has a section with a more global view of all 2016 standings templates. Nothing wrong with WP:BOLD, but we collaborate for better resolutions.

Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, this a good idea. Linking to the most specific, most relevant article is always prudent. But, if we link to 2016 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings, for example, we don't also need the more generic link to AP Poll. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I concur as well. The default link should be to the annual rankings page, when it exists (which I think it does for all years of the projects listed above). No need for the generic link when the annual page exists. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Done per above, for 2016 standings (only). I'm not 100% sold either way. Let's see the response of editors who more closely watch individual conferences. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 articles

Isn't it WP:TOOSOON to be creating 2017 articles (Mississippi St.)? If so, AFD it or redirect it? Pinging Jpp858 since he created the article... It's a little ridiculous to be creating next season's articles when this season isn't even over yet... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Lizard (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Rule of thumb is to wait until the season is over to begin making articles for the next season. @Jpp858: if you've got an itch to create some season articles, we have hundreds of historical ones that need to be started. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Such as Ole Miss, for example. Lizard (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've redirected it for now. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Where was y'all previous years? --Jpp858 (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Where is ya'll with the Auburn article? Don't contradict yourself--Jpp858 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that article should be redirected as well. Lizard (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jpp858, the 2017 Auburn article should have been nipped in the bud sooner and it has been now. This issue has certainly been discussed in past years. That we haven't had absolute vigilance in policing this in the past doesn't mean we should enforce some standards now. Again there are hundreds of historical seasons that still need to be stubbed out, much less developed into robust articles. We could use your help there! Jweiss11 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS:, per your creation of 2017 Arkansas Razorbacks football team, please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the three I created (here, here, and here) could be left up since the season is almost over; I was unaware of the existence of WP:TOOSOON and apologize for creating these articles too soon. I will stop creating articles for the 2017 season until the conclusion of the national championship game. Thanks to @Jweiss11: for bringing this to my attention.PCN02WPS (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Auto-tagging of articles

Based on what User:BU Rob13 has already done for tagging player articles for the project, what would everyone think about doing the same thing for Category:College football coaches in the United States and Category:College football seasons? Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not do the whole tree down from Category:College football? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
User_talk:BU_Rob13/Archive_4#Hi. Hmm. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd even go so far as to say I'd refuse to do the entire category tree without reviewing each individual subcategory. It's a recipe for disaster, and even if I did it exactly as a project told me to, I'll ultimately be the one strung up at WP:ANI or WP:BONB as having an out-of-control tagging bot. ~ Rob13Talk 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you have to go through all the subcats individually to make sure they are relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thoughts on expanding again to target Category:American college football templates? ~ Rob13Talk 21:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fork in college football independents records templates

We have a fork developing in the standings (records) templates for independents. Last week Rhino83166 created Template:1894 college football independents records and Template:1895 college football independents records. A few weeks back UW Dawgs created a series of similar templates including Template:1894 college football records and Template:1895 college football records. We need to resolve this before the fork gets worse. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 15 UW Dawgs (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

question on All-Pacific Coast methodology

We have the Pacific Coast Conference (1915-1959) which traces to the modern Pac-12. We also have Category:All-Pac-12 Conference football teams, which includes "All-Pacific Coast" and "All-Pacific Coast Conference" teams during the PCC years. Are these regional (West coast) or a conference (PCC) selections? For example, 1945 All-Pacific Coast football team includes "St. Mary's Gaels" players when the school wasn't PCC affiliated -though this might be a poor example with WWII irregularities. I started to work on some category-wide cleanup and standardization issues, but it now appears there is more nuance. Right now I'm leaning to the PCC era being a regional award throughout, FWIW. Thanks, UW Dawgs (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This article for the 1950 team says players from both conference and independent schools on the Pacific coast are eligible. Lizard (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Lizard, 2nd set of eyes is appreciated. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Conference records involving teams that are ineligible for the conference championship

The yearly conference standings templates, and many articles as well, seem to take inconsistent approaches to whether teams that are ineligible for the conference championship should be included in standings for conference games. Some don't include these games as conference games (e.g. Fordham here or Savannah State and North Carolina Central here), but some do (e.g. Penn State here or Appalachian State and Georgia Southern here). As I've been creating a few season articles for teams in conferences affected by this, I'd like to get some clarification on whether there's a reason for the inconsistency and, if not, what we should do about it. I personally think it looks odd to include a team in the conference standings and then say none of their games are conference games, but if there's some sort of official reason for doing this (e.g. games used to determine the conference championship, maybe?) we should follow that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO the teams should be included with a note saying they are ineligible. But I would defer to the conference media guide though on how they handle it. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the case-by-case reasoning and reflect it in a brief footer note as necessary. See Template:NCAA Division I FBS conference standings navbox for examples. Think the template notes in standings are under-utilized at this point (forfeits, vacations, tie-breakers, etc). UW Dawgs (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Independents standings

There are two new discussion threads at Category talk:NCAA Division I FBS independents football records templates in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

division championship edit warring

Edit warring on List of Pac-12 Conference football champions and List of Utah Utes football seasons from editor with ~20 edits. Appreciate assistance directing them to existing discussion at Talk:List of Pac-12 Conference football champions.

The project-level discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 17#Conference_divisional_co-champions. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted his (persistent) edits and gave him a 3RR warning, but those discussions do seem a bit stale and it might help if you were to start a new section laying out what the issue appears to be this time around. I find that when dealing with an edit warrior, I'm on more solid ground still if I have opened up discussion and they simply ignore it! JohnInDC (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

off-season project: migrate all-time W-L-T data to wikidata.org

Stated, I'm not an editor focused on the immediate post-game edits to team articles, coaches articles, standings templates, etc. That's a nightmare of IP editors, vandals, unsourced changes, etc.

However, we obviously choose to maintain historical, all-time W-L-T program data in multiple locations, such as:

There can be minor differences in the program's view vs NCAA view of the W-L-T data, due to forfeits, vacations, sanctioned games, etc.

That said, this W-L-T data seems like a great candidate for off-season consolidation to wikidata. Then it's maintained in a single location and propagates to all pages in a consistent manner. Contentious edits get more visibility and accuracy improves -with less effort by the good-faith editors who maintain this data. Without diving into implementation, perhaps we also support a "through date" (2015 season, November 7, 2016) field and "reference" field (such as the current "201x NCAA record book" URL) which can be surfaced as citations/notes on these article types. And at the margin, I think the wikidata is slightly less likely to be vandalized simply because it is obscured (not inline) in the article.

The counter view can be seen in Template:American college football All-Americans which attempts to do exactly this (maintain data in a central location, support render via a template embedded within articles), but the data hasn't been updated (my recollection). So we're showing 2015 data, missing 2016 updates, and don't support all teams -and it therefore hasn't been consistently put into use on team article infoboxes.

Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Do it. Lizard (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, do it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you delete a picture from commons because it is old?

Please comment at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:20080829 Rich Rodriguez.jpg, where a file has been nominated for deletion because it is old.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha. No! This picture of George Washington is over 200 years old! Time for an update! Jweiss11 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

1986 and 1998--ohio state Michigan rivalry

This post incorrectly state that the 1986 and 1998 games between Ohio State and Michigan were not played at the end of the regular season when, in fact, they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.67.192.98 (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Both years Michigan played Hawaii in a regular season game following Ohio State - see 1986_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team and 1998_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team. JohnInDC (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Princeton Lions to Tigers

There is a research request/discussion at Talk:Princeton Tigers football#lions to tigers in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing Princeton team name to "New Jersey"

Earlier today, @UW Dawgs: began to change the name of the 19th century Princeton football team articles from "Princeton Tigers" to "New Jersey Tigers." The edit summaries state: "Became Princeton in 1896". See, e.g., this diff. While it is correct that the school was officially called the "College of New Jersey" during these years, the common name for both the educational institution and certainly for the football team was "Princeton", not "New Jersey". Accordingly, I believe the "Princeton Tigers" naming that has been in place for years is correct and should be restored. The common usage of "Princeton" for the football team during the applicable years appears to have been uniform and widespread -- examples include the following: 1882 Yale defeated "Princeton" for the championship, 1883 "The Yale-Princeton Game", 1884 "Princeton Defeats Harvard", 1885 "Yale vs. Princeton", 1886 "Princeton's Foot Ball Victory", 1887 "Yale Defeats Princeton. I find not one instance of the teams being referenced at the "New Jersey Tigers". I suggest these sorts of wholesale changes of team names on long-standing articles might better be put forward for group discussion before launching an extensive campaign of changes. Cbl62 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME evidence is compelling and I will partially revert (you break, you buy). In general, it has been my experience that early early names and mascots are often inaccurate. And the current universal use of "Tigers" (rather than Lions) appears incorrect, per the cites in above linked section. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The "lions"/"tigers" issue is an interesting one. Though it may constitute WP:OR, I have provided some data for you at Talk:Princeton Tigers football#lions to tigers. I don't find any support for changing early teams to "Princeton Lions", but "1880 Princeton football team" appears to be a viable option. Cbl62 (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Intercollegiate Football Association

Feedback requested on Intercollegiate Football Association.

So net out, I think Intercollegiate Football Association is a conference (ala SEC, Pac-12) and not an Org (ala NCAA, NAIA). I was pretty close to fully building out the associated "IFA" Categories and porting "conf" standings data for these teams to new "IFA" standings templates, but thought better of simply being BOLD.

Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk)

Seems like IFA is a governing body related to rules standardization, not a conference. But we have an existing article which lists IFA champions by year, at Intercollegiate Football Association. So are these "conf" champs (from four or so teams) or "college football" champs? UW Dawgs (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Listing division on coaching standings

On coach articles the standings for all the articles I have ever seen list the standing for how they finished within the division (given the conference has a division). An IP address, user:156.222.124.111, has continued to change the standings on Sonny Dykes to the "overall" standings. Has there ever been a standard to go by? Since the vast majority of pages list standing within the division is that what it should be? I don't want to be banned for an edit war but the user who keeps reverting it doesn't seem to care about my argument so I thought I'd bring it here.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Bsuorangecrush, my understanding is that all the FBS conferences that are split into division official report their standing only by division. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to present such "overall" conference standings in placed like head coaching record tables. Some lower Division conferences, as the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference and the Lone Star Conference, report their standings by both division and overall conference. You can see an example of how I've represented this head coaching record tables at Todd Hoffner. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't suppose there is anyway to get their edits stopped is there? Refuses to listen to reason and keeps changing it back under different IP addresses. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Johnson (American football coach)

How is Jimmy Johnson NOT the primary topic for individuals with that name? He won't get confused with Jimmie Johnson.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Johnson (cornerback). Lizard (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Lizard I know that coach Jimmy Johnson isn't the only person with that name, but with many move discussions where people with parentheticals were switched to the primary topic without parentheticals the argument always shifted around one person's wide margin of google search results and far superior general notability. There is a reason we have Ryan Reynolds, and Ryan Reynolds (American football), not Ryan Reynolds (actor): Jeff Fisher, Jeff Fisher (composer), and not Jeff Fisher (American football coach).UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The RM regulars would probably oppose it on the basis that Jimmy is normally a diminutive of James, and there's far too many James Johnsons to have a primary topic. That's what happened when my RM for Jim Taylor (American football) ended in no consensus. Lizard (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay that is an answer that satisfies my original question.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

College Football Playoff (CFP) designations / terminologies

Since the "College Football Playoff (CFP)" is fairly new and official (replacing the BCS), a precedent and compromise has formed between editors on individual articles in references and in using some new (official) terminologies and verbiage such as the acronym "CFP," "College Football Playoff Committee," "New Year's Six," "New Year's Six Bowls," "Semifinalists" and "Finalists" in the College Football Playoff. Teams are also being honored with official distinctions by being selected by the CFP Committee. In researching this by contacting the College Football Playoff organization directly, the terminology of "Finalists" seems to be preferred over the term "Runners-up" when added to official terms with the CFP, and in compromise, has been added to the same info box field on corresponding team pages with bowl games / conference championships / finals and semifinals, or until one of the same style and color code can be incorporated. It would seem for page content and cosmetic purposes to continue this compromise, since biased fans have already added (erroneously?) specific fields for "claimed" and "unclaimed" national championships on individual pages which are not official designations, or titles anyway. SportsEdits1 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

mass TfD in progress

User:Grondemar appears to have begun a mass TfD per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Category:American college football quarterback navigational boxes.

Interested editors can comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 7. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject College football/Archive 18 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolving four early Big Ten teams

These four future Big Ten teams appear in two conference standings templates in both 1892 and 1893, but not in the general "independents" standings:

  • Minnesota
  • Wisconsin
  • Michigan
  • Northwestern
1892 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest football standings
Conf Overall
Team W   L   T W   L   T
Minnesota $ 3 – 0 – 0 5 – 0 – 0
Wisconsin 2 – 2 – 0 4 – 3 – 0
Michigan 1 – 2 – 0 7 – 5 – 0
Northwestern 1 – 3 – 0 6 – 4 – 2
  • $ – Conference champion
 {{1892 Eastern Independent Conference football standings|normal=1}} {{1892 college football independents records|normal=1}}


1893 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest football standings
Conf Overall
Team W   L   T W   L   T
Minnesota $ 3 – 0 – 0 6 – 0 – 0
Wisconsin 1 – 1 – 0 4 – 2 – 0
Michigan 1 – 2 – 0 7 – 3 – 0
Northwestern 0 – 2 – 0 2 – 5 – 3
  • $ – Conference champion
 {{1893 Eastern Independent Conference football standings|normal=1}} {{1893 college football independents records|normal=1}}

These schools don't self-identify as conference-affiliated for those years, so presumably there were independents of some sort:

Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest has multiple offline citations, making it difficult to verify specifics. There is no Eastern Independent Conference article at all making its verification difficult. Perhaps it should be removed, pending more discovery.

Similar to Intercollegiate Football Association above, perhaps Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest is more of an org (ala NCAA) than a conference (ala Big Ten). And if so, its own standings and even champions may be appropriate.

Feedback and research assistance appreciated. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Eastern Independent Conference is actually a real thing. It may be essentially OR that originated at the source cited by the templates: e.g. http://www.phys.utk.edu/sorensen/cfr/cfr/Output/1892/CF_1892_Conferences.html. @Rhino83166:, you created the Eastern Independent Conference standing templates. You can provide any additional context? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

U-La-La

Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns keeps on getting vandalized because of the violation of consensus again and again. Can we get this page protected through at least March? And if so how, I would like to learn for my own educational purposes.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you beat me to the cleanup. Then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and already filed as shown here. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, you showed me and beat me to the request.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lamar Jackson

When If Lamar Jackson wins the Heisman tonight, his page could use an overhaul. It's still in a very basic state, since he exploded onto the scene only just recently. Lizard (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

deprecate Athletic Director

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox NCAA football school#deprecate Athletic Director in which you may be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Little help?

Would love to know the name of W. Hamilton, or J. C. Anderson. Cake (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:American college football quarterback navigational boxes

I discovered this category of navbox recently, when @DMC511: added his newly-created Template:Connecticut Huskies quarterback navbox to Zach Frazer. Of the 14 quarterbacks listed in the navbox, only four have articles; the rest aren't even redlinked (probably because they will never meet WP:NCOLLATH). I looked at a sample of the other navboxes in the category, and all of the ones I saw (even for a prominent program such as Alabama)) over half of the names in the navboxes are either red links or not linked at all. If you think about it, this makes sense, since no college program in its history is going to have all (or even a majority) of its quarterbacks be notable enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH.

Per WP:NAV, unlinked entries should be avoided in navboxes; a proliferation of redlinks is also discouraged. I think these are perfect examples of where lists are much more appropriate that navboxes. In a list article there is no issue with having redlinked and unlinked names. In fact, we already have the much smaller Category:Lists of college football quarterbacks.

My recommendation is that we listify all of these templates where a list does not currently exist. I wanted to discuss here first, however, before starting a mass TFD that might be contentious. –Grondemar 17:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. We have 167 Category:American college football quarterback navigational boxes and 18 Category:Lists of college football quarterbacks.
The project is currently (over a year) focused on building out individual season articles. These QB lists are the least developed of the standardized content we typically link in the navbox for each team, possibly due to the low-bar to create a navbox and support from NFL editors who might not otherwise care about the college list article. Counts:
If your issue is WP:REDLINK of non-WP:GNG players, delinking is appropriate. I don't immediately see the benefit of the TFD path, when we should have a navbox supporting a list article in each case at some point. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Since no one else has commented, I'm going to start nominating the navboxes at TfD. I'll do them a few at a time since mass TfDs always turn into a mess. –Grondemar 03:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend doing that. Keep in mind that all of these navboxes could be modified to look like this, although it would defeat the point of capturing the entire succession of quarterbacks. Ultimately, I think a better solution is needed. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ejgreen77: Do you have any ideas on a better solution? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
My concerns here are twofold 1.) Making sure that whatever is decided, all Division I teams are treated the same (unlike what happened here.) 2.) Making sure that all of the information contained in these templates is WP:PRESERVED somewhere on Wikipedia. In his initial comment, Grondemar mentioned the possibility of converting all of the templates into list articles, and if he's willing to put in the time and effort to create the list articles and do the conversion, that would be an acceptable resolution of this for me. We could then remove all of the redlinked and non-linked names from the templates, leaving us with something that looks like this. That's probably going to be the best way to take care of this, IMHO. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I work on adding QBs to the Oklahoma Sooners QB navbox, but I completely favor Deletion across the board. But as long as we have them I will work on them.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

1919 Colorado AfD discussion

There is a discussion re a lone Colorado Buffalo season article and implicitly re the college season article project in which you might be interested, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In a related note, please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1947 Washington State Cougars football team. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Specific" team championships in header / capitalization re-clarification

This seems to have already been set by precedent and consensus between editors on most major sports articles and categories including basketball, soccer, tennis, boxing etc., in both men's and women's sports. Since I have researched this (and have degrees in both English and Journalism), certain types of references to "team sports" or "sports with multiple players" such as championships are usually plural when listed and are often capitalized when referring to a "specific" championship (making it a proper noun phrase), ie "Big 10 Champions," "SEC Champions," "Rose Bowl Champions," "BCS Champions," etc. Single player sports when referring to a proper noun or phrase and specific are capitalized and singular, would often be, for example, "Wimbledon Champion," "WBC Heavyweight Champion," "Nextel Cup Champion," etc. More over, as references, the conferences, organizations like the CFP, BCS, and the individual bowls themselves, list their specific Conference or "Bowl Champions" in their official media guides and websites as does the NCAA [2][3][4][5][6]. Thanks. SportsEdits1 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Upon further research and MLA related sources [7][8], "Champions" becomes a proper noun when connected to another proper noun, or because you are referring to a specific thing or idea: Rose Bowl Champions, Big 10 Champions, ACC Champions, etc. It would be grammatically similar to other common to proper nouns such as "ocean," "bridge," "building," etc. As with the word "ocean, it is a common noun, not capitalized, when used alone, generically, in a sentence: "John wants to go sailing on the ocean." However when referring to something specific, it is generally capitalized: "Atlantic Ocean", "Pacific Ocean", "Indian Ocean." "Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean." Another example: "I bought a gift for my Aunt Mary, but not my other aunts." Similar to "Golden Gate Bridge," "BCS National Champions," "NBA All-Star Game." This is also the consensus in most official media guides, almanacs, and team sports pages. I have also verified this with the NCAA and various media relations departments. Best. SportsEdits1 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I really don't see anything in the sources provided that supports capitalization of "champion." Pacific Ocean is capitalized because that's its name. Same with Golden Gate Bridge, Empire State Building, etc. It has nothing to do with being connected to a proper noun. Time magazine is written as such because "magazine" is not a part of the name. Lizard (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Lizard here. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You guys are making this too difficult. "Sometimes, proper nouns contain two or more important words. If this is the case, those important words are capitalized, and the whole thing is still considered to be one proper noun even though it's made up of more than one word." Everything in the sources provided, using the standard rules of English grammar, supports the capitalization of "champions" if you are referring to something "specific" making it a proper noun. Time / Life is just a company name, and is irrelevant here. All of the examples I gave got those names following the rules of grammar. It just depends on whether or not a word is being used as a common or proper noun. SportsEdits1 (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Lizard and Jweiss. Champion in this context is not a proper noun. As for plural "champions" vs. "champion", it depends on the context. If you are referring to a team, e.g., the 2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, the subject is the team, which is singular; thus the 2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team is the national champion. On the other hand, if you refer to the Cubs, the subject is a plural term, and the correct usage is "champions". Thus, the 2016 Chicago Cubs are World Series champions. Context is key; it is simple grammar. Cbl62 (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • And I respect that you have all worked together before. But, in fact, champions in this context would be a proper noun, and is "specific." "BCS National Championship" refers to a specific championship, as does "Rose Bowl Champions." Team sports are composed of multiple players, so it would be plural. The Alabama Crimson Tide would be the "SEC Champions." [9] The Clemson Tigers would be the "ACC Champions." [10] This is true for most team sports.[1] [11][12] You could make it singular by referring to something like just the school, but this appears on a banner, and is not being used in the context of a sentence, with a subject anyway. Respectfully, I am going to trust the MLA / rules of grammar, an English degree, the hours of research and confirmation from several bowl and conference offices I contacted, the NCAA, and their official media guides. SportsEdits1 (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html
The examples you have provided are all caps, thus have no bearing on an initial cap analysis. Moreover, your examples are t-shirts and banners probably published by the athletic programs involved, rather than usage by reputable media outlets following established stylistic manuals or protocols. When you look at the major media outlets, applying established style manuals, you will see that there is no capitalization of "champion" in the types of situations we are discussing. See, e.g., Los Angeles Times ("ACC champion", "Big East champion"), Chicago Tribune ("Big Ten champion"), Chicago Tribune ("The Rose Bowl champion Badgers ..."), The Washington Post ("Orange Bowl champion"), The Washington Post ("Virginia, the ACC champion ..."), The New York Times (Auburn stood as "the SEC champion"), The New York Times (referring to Washington as "the Rose Bowl champion"). Cbl62 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The AP Stylebook would probably tell us all we need to know, if anyone has access to it. Lizard (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Side note: is the issue really that they were all in caps?:[13][14]. *L* But you can't deny that it's not plural though. My point in those photo references is that groups and teams are generally officially referred to as "champions" plural, and capitalized when specific.
I have not seen any references, rules, or cases provided by anyone here that determine when a proper noun (specific) would not be capitalized in this context. Research, confirmation, and official media guides seem to state otherwise. I also saw that you (Cbl62) were pushing this on the other thread, and surmised that you were going to probably cherry pick articles to make the same point. My problem with this is, one can also do a search of most 'specific championships' (making it a proper noun) and get results were it is also capitalized from reputable sources: Associated Press "Alabama head coach Nick Saban celebrates Alabama's SEC Championship win over Florida" New York Times ("B.C.S. National Champions"), Associated Press ("SEC Championship"), N.C.A.A. ("D1 Women's Soccer National Champions") N.C.A.A. ("DIII NCAA National Championship"), Chicago Tribune ("BMW Championship, PGA Champion"). I have also previously linked websites that contain media guides that list their specific champions and championships with capital letters. As stated, "champions" is not being used in a sentence here. If it is simply listed or banner-ed (as info boxes tend to be discriminant list of some kind) or the "heading" or "title" of a list, an article title, or "standing alone," then it would be capitalized anyway, or when used as a proper noun (also by standard English / MLA rules). I have seen nothing in the archives that suggests changing the consensus of thousands of editors to something that is awkward and not really correct anyway. SportsEdits1 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, nearly all of sources you've just cited are irrelevant to the argument at hand. No one is arguing "PGA Championship" or "SEC Championship" shouldn't be capitalized. What should not be capitalized is "SEC champion". And per Wikipedia's own manual of style, it doesn't matter if it's listed or banner-ed or in running text. Per MOS:LISTBULLET: Lists of other elements (since none of the other elements apply her) "are formatted consistently in either sentence case or lower case." Never title case. Lizard (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
They are relevant in verifying that champions is plural for team sports, and is often capitalized when used as a proper noun. I think you misunderstood my usage of the word list. I was stating that if you look at a list of specific championships in an official source, they are usually capitalized, e.g. Rose Bowl Champions, NBA Champions. Nothing I stated had anything to do with bullet listings on wikipedia. SportsEdits1 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Lew Lane

I think that Lew Lane might be the same person as Lew Lane, the NFL player but I can't find any definitive sources. Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Big 12 CCG issue

I am getting ready to do some updates to the Big 12 Championship Game page to reflect its return next season. I however don't know what to do about the results table. I plan to add a second header for all the games from 2017 and onword but I don't know what to call each team. Before it was just North/South, but with it now just being the two top teams should I just list it as 1st and 2nd or something else.Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

How about follow the pattern with bowl games from 2017 until (expansion/divisions/dissolution of the conference) we could just have winning team on the left and losing team on the right. Just my thoughts.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that would work, I don't know why I didn't think of that.Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

All-America Team Selectors

Any reason why on the 2016 College Football All-America Team page, we cannot also list selectors such as Phil Steele and others who are highly regarded in the CFB world?Wscsuperfan (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Because he already votes with the FWAA. Lizard (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't even think the schools even recognize some of these "selectors" such as Phil Steele or Athlon? I am really questioning why Athlon is even in there. Some of the positions have it as a selector and some don't. Heck anybody wonder what the Bloomington Herald Times says?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Trust me, schools recognize every selector under the sun. They would recognize your grandma's honorable mention All-America team. Which is why media guides and other university published sources are not reliable. Lizard (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
In many ways I agree, but Oklahoma really follows (not exclusively but close to exclusively) the FWAA. That is why we really need to focus on this line in the article itself. "Currently, the NCAA recognizes All-Americans selected by the AP, AFCA, FWAA, TSN, and the WCFF to determine consensus and unanimous All-Americans." Ergo, the rest are just trying to sell magazines, but it doesn't carry any weight.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
See also (granted I know it is about templates but its a starting point). here, and hereUCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
And in the interest of fairness a previous discussion that had the same questions about Athlon I do now, but didn't say no eitherUCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that the official selectors need to be emphasized much more prominently than they currently are. The selectors that are official should be established in the first paragraph, BEFORE all the other junk, not after it. Lizard (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, it's a shame that most of the editors in those template discussions you linked to aren't around anymore. The football projects are really suffering from a lack of participation in discussions. Lizard (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with adding notable selectors beyond the NCAA "official" group so long as it is made clear that they are not "official". See 1926 College Football All-America Team as an example of how it's been done for earlier years. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

disputed and unsourced SIAA football content

I've spent the last week tackling both early seasons and programs' historical conference affiliations. Much has focused on unsourced or inaccurate Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association (SIAA) affiliated articles, by updating with citations. On point, additional eyes and research would be appreciated on the following:

No replies here, please. Trying to take this to the respective Talk pages to capture the research and discovery. UW Dawgs (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll archive here, and paste to one of the talk pages. I have done some research on the SIAA, but mainly through a couple of programs. You have to remember that the SIAA in its infancy was a small, evolving, spreading league, with evolving rules & eligibility, organizing by spreading school membership who had delegates, who in turn, were just starting to organize their first teams to participate in any form of athletics outside their own campuses. All of the schools / teams were no even called programs yet, were not wealthy, mostly poor, and travel to further states wasn't always easy. With that said, I contacted the Clemson University sports information office and library. According to their records, a book entitled: "Handbook of Southern Intercollegiate Track and Field Athletics" [15] by John Wendell Bailey (1924) of former Mississippi A&M College has Clemson College, among other schools, listed as members as of 1895. Clemson didn't officially field their first athletic team until the following spring in 1896, which was baseball. They were also members of the SIAA league until 1921 when they helped charter the early Southern Conference. Hence, whomever removed Clemson College (who has always been affiliated) from the SIAA and Southern Conference standings for those years, needs to restore them as it probably already was. Best. SportsEdits1 (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Early era standings tables for independents

The recent spread of standing tables for independent schools in the late 19th century and early 20th century appears problematic. As an example, see the 1905 Stetson Hatters football team article. Such tables may or may not make sense in recent years where there is a relatively small and discrete number of Division I FBS independents. Compare 2006 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team with its standings table for a grand total four FBS independents. But in the early 1900s, most schools did not belong to conferences, so that a standings table for independents is problematic for multiple reasons:

(1) Using the 1905 template as an example, many of these teams have little or nothing to do with each other (such diverse schools as Yale, Stetson, Nebraska, Stanford, Wabash, and Swarthmore are included in the same template). The grouping of such diverse and unrelated programs may constitute original research.
(2) The sheer number of teams (already nearly 50 in the 1905 template) makes the tables quite unwieldy.
(3) It is unclear what inclusionary or exclusionary standards are being used since there were many, many more independent programs than those listed in the tables.
(4) The tables are incomplete and would likely number well over 125 entries if they were made to be complete. For example, the following additional teams also played college football in 1905 but are not included in that year's independents template: Akron, Arizona, Arizona State, Boston College, Bucknell, Buffalo, Butler, Central Michigan, Cincinnati, Citadel, Colgate, Colorado State, Columbia, Cornell, Dayton, Delaware, DePauw, Drake, Duke, Fordham, Franklin & Marshall, George Washington, Georgetown, Hardin-Simmons, Holy Cross, Iowa State, Kalamazoo, Lafayette, Lehigh, Maine, Marshall, Massachusetts, Miami (OH), Missouri, Montana State, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Mexico State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Notre Dame, NYU, Ohio, Rhode Island, Richmond, Samford, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Southeast Missouri State, Stevens Tech, Syracuse, Temple, Tennessee-Chattanooga, Utah State, Villanova, West Virginia, Wichita State, Willamette, Wyoming. Do we really want independents standings tables that have over 125 entries? Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Do away with all of them per your first reasoning. "Independent" is not a conference, there's no reason to group them that way. Lizard (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
My vote would be the same as Lizard. Get rid of them. Cbl62 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep for obvious contextual value and consistency within the team-season articles. And the templates are used elsewhere including the "19xx college football season" and "list of independent standings" type articles, so deletion will create gaps. We may ultimately need to pursue a new and optional "collapsed" parameter and invoke as the default where necessary. Splitting by region is another option, but with some obvious downside. We've noted this would come to a head and we're nowhere close to knowing how to decide it right now because of the lack of accurate early conference content and ongoing team-season article creation. UW Dawgs (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me inevitable to sort them by region for somehow. Cake (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps by state? My rationale regions can get murky, (Okies for instance argue over what region we belong in.) Many early teams joined conferences with their in state schools West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Rocky Mountain Conference etc.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Or delete all prior to founding of University Division.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. After thinking about it further, I think the standings templates for independents should be deleted. The rapid proliferation of these templates is seriously troubling. One was just added today to 1891 Michigan Wolverines football team purporting to reflect the standings of every college football team in the country when in fact the table is grossly incomplete (and making it complete would only make it more problematic). Here is my ultimate conclusion: Standings templates makes sense for conferences. But the grouping of dozens of teams that are wholly unaffiliated and unrelated, at schools of different sizes and shapes, playing at different levels (and even under different rules for 19th century teams), and then placing them in a single, unified standings table creates a false sense of cohesion and hierarchy and is clearly inappropriate and violative of WP:OR. These really need to be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You've posted three times and ignored the direct feedback on your proposal. And no, no one thinks any of the early independent standings are "purporting to reflect the standings of every college football team" -absurd given the daily updates and article creation. And part of your stated reason on displaying "unrelated" (your stated view, not mine) teams via standings would also clearly apply to 2016 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team and Template:2016 Division I FBS independents football records for example.
Regardless, resolving a valid aesthetic concern isn't done by suppressing content and thereby breaking usage and consistency throughout Wiki including via transcluding article types, such as List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1869–1955) and 19xx college football season. It's done by refactoring the content, such as collapsing the display by default on team articles (my view), spliting by region or state (problematic), or replacing the template with a link to a standalone view of that content. Expunging relevant and viewer-expected content for display reasons, rather than simply refactoring it, is always ill-conceived. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
My primary concern is not aesthetic, but policy driven. These incomplete, random collections of unrelated teams into standings templates violates WP:OR. As for your contention that people "expect" to see such lengthy, random lists, I disagree. These have mostly been created (by you) over the past three months. Cbl62 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
CommentThe compilation of independents into conference standings is done by major media outlets ESPN and CBS among others. So I agree the idea of the inclusion of these has merit. Couldn't some reasonable cutoff be made either before the 1973 with formation of Division I, (or even further back but no further than whenever the NCAA split into college, and university division.) It wouldn't suppress content of more reasonable tables like more modern ones such as 2016. Yet we wouldn't have the extreme Template:1873 college football records (giving all college football teams) or 1905 examples.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay:: It's not the moderns that strike me as problematic. Today, there is a small and discrete group of Division I FBS programs numbering fewer than 10. To the extent that grouping gets treated as a unique group, my WP:OR concern may not apply. But when it comes to the 19th and earlier 20th centuries, the sheer number of independents, and lack of cohesion, is what creates the problem.
Fine. I doubt anyone agrees with your novel WP:OR contention or that standings of Independents are "random" when it is trivial to describe the criteria of a discrete group within any given season. We have used Independent standings templates for a long time as part of our article layout, and done so at par with every CFB media site as seen on their Notre Dame team pages, for example. So again, if you have no aesthetic concern, what is driving your new "policy" proposal to suppress some content being treated identically with our existing norms? UW Dawgs (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cbl62: That is why I am suggesting (partially as a compromise, partially because of logistics) a cutoff at the beginning of the University Division.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: A cutoff of some type might help for a few reasons: 1) in the modern era there are a lot fewer independents, and 2) limiting it to FBS (or possibly University Division) at least avoids the random comparison of teams competing at wholly different levels of play. When did University Division incept? 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I went to the archives and found a prior discussion of the issue. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 12#Templates for Division I FBS independents football standings. Based on the comment there noting that the ESPN Encyclopedia includes records in table format for "major independents" from 1936 forward, I would be fine with a compromise following the ESPN precedent and allowing analogous tables for "major independents" from that same date forward. But absent any indication that reliable sources have grouped independents prior to 1936 (or ever grouped independents of all sizes and shapes into unified standings tables), I propose the following: (a) templates for "major independents" tracking the ESPN lists are fine for the period from 1936 forward, and (b) templates for years prior to 1936 (and templates not limited to "major independents") should not be permitted as they would be violative of WP:OR. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone understand what problem has been identified? There are many good-faith and reasonable suggestions for change, but little context around any real issue beyond some arbitrary preferences. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The policy problem is WP:OR. Using the 1905 template as an example, there are no reliable sources that support this grouping of teams. Or that justify the exclusion of the other 1905 teams noted above in my original comment. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The actual problem is that nobody in 1905 gave a damn how many independent schools there were. The concept of being "independent" likely wasn't even thought of, since there were more independent schools than there were schools in conferences. Remove all the divisions in the NFL, except for the NFC West, which gets to keep its four teams. It would be odd to refer to the other 28 teams as "independent". Lizard (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, simple question here. The 1908 Michigan Wolverines football team competed as an independent. In 1908 there were over 100 independent college football teams. Do you think the 1908 Michigan article should have a standings template that lists the record of over 100 other independent teams? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@UW Dawgs:, can you respond to my question here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#External links to general program website on specific season articles. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

1969 Penn St. College Football season.

I believe the article about the 1969 Penn St. college football season, and the college football season in general contains an error. It mentions how the polls conducted their final season poll before the bowl games. I believe that was only true for the UPI Coaches poll. The Associated Press AP poll started the policy of waiting until after the bowl games to conduct their final poll, and crowned their National Champion the year before in 1968. The AP Poll never went back. The AP waited until after the Bowl season to conduct their final poll in 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.28.130 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Score format

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Score format that may be of interest to members of this project. Cbl62 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Schemes, depth charts

With my recent purchase of Fuzzy Woodruff's A History of Southern Football I could add depth charts (e. g. see here if only I knew the scheme utilized by the coach. Contact me if you know of any I've missed. Cake (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Main Program sports listing table or bullet discussion (COULD CHANGE HUNDREDS OF PAGES)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Tables which editors may be interested in.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Bump in the watchlists.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

COI at Ted Karras, Jr.

We have a bit of a COI issue brewing at Ted Karras, Jr. The subject of the article, Karris himself, has deleted cited content about his recent firing at Walsh. I've already reverted his edits a number of times, and I am now in discussion with him at his talk page. Perhaps, someone else can weigh in as well? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems there was a bit of controversy surrounding Karras at Walsh this past season: http://www.cantonrep.com/sports/20161020/former-walsh-players-plan-protest-of-cavs-football-coach-ted-karras. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 consensus All-Americans needing pages

We still have four 2016 consensus All-Americans without articles: Cody O'Connell (OT, Wazzu); Connor Williams (OT, Texas); Zane Gonzales (kicker, AZ State); and Quadree Henderson (all-purpose, Pitt). Lizard (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll make some stubs; can't promise much. Wish there was some QPQ for it wink nudge. Cake (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Army–Navy Game

I don't think 2016 Army–Navy Game is significant enough for a stand-alone article. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not. The coverage it has or will receive is ROUTINE. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It was fun to watch, but it's not significantly different from past iterations. Mackensen (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, no reason to single out that game for its own page. Maybe just be listed as a notable game on the Army–Navy Game page, which it already is. (Unsigned comment by Bsuorangecrush)
Agreed. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
So what now? Take to AFD, or just redirect it to Army–Navy Game? - BilCat (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the unanimity of opinion here, a redirect is reasonable. If the creator disputes the redirect, it could then be presented at AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, redirect it to the main Army–Navy Game article. Not notable in itself outside of the context of the main Army–Navy rivalry article, and the results of this particular game can be covered adequately there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Done - redirected to Army–Navy_Game#Notable_games, where the 2016 contest is already briefly written up. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

12:00 p.m. vs noon college yearly schedules

A small issue, but user x96lee15 is insisting we use noon rather than 12:00 p.m. as the time indicator for those games at that time (see 2015 USC Trojans football team). I believe most pages use the 12:00 p.m. format, so I'm trying to standardize to that. The user is citing MOS standards rather than the wikiproject's adopted standard. Feel free to discuss here if anyone is interested.....Pvmoutside (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

All my point is that the MOS:TIME says, "Usually, use noon and midnight rather than 12 pm and 12 am." Yes, it does say "usually", but I don't think this is a case where we should go against the MOS. It's my understanding that the MOS trumps any WikiProject standard. I also don't believe it's a WP:CFB adopted standard anyway. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It says "usually" for a reason, and this seems like an exceptional enough case to justify a break from the MOS; the times are displayed in a table as part of a schedule, not as prose, so using a word for the time in one row when the other rows use numbers looks strange. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The most respected style guides actually support 12 p.m., not 12:00 p.m. Cbl62 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
12:00 PM. Consistency, people, unless you want to start spelling out "one o'clock," "two-thirty," etc. in all of these tables. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that spelling out the time of day (whether its noon, midnight or one o'clock) in a table like this is wrong. That part is easy. But according to the most respected style guides, the proper format is 12 p.m. when it's the top of the hour, 12:15, etc. when it's anything other than the top of the hour. I always thought that seemed inconsistent but I had it beaten into me in my early years of working at a major law firm -- "top of the hour has no added digits", 1 p.m., etc. Cbl62 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that nothing should be spelled out. And I understand why you would say to not put the added digits at the top of the hour. But I would say that most websites I've seen always us the :00. I even just look at quite a few different schools athletic websites and they all used :00 on their schedules. I would vote to keep the :00.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I brought this up on the MOS page here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Usage of "noon" and "midnight" in tables with other times. Since this is really a question of using "noon" in tables with other non-noon times and not specifically a WP:CFB issue. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Just following up, all of the comments on the MOS talk page favor "noon" in this instance. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Template deletions

See here for a discussion on college soccer conference award navboxes. Could effect this WikiProject if deleted. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros to be moved to UTRGV Vaqueros. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team has been nominated for discussion

Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Grondemar 07:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Don Elser

I created his article since he was a pro basketball player in the 1940s, but turns out he was a standout college football player and pro for one year for the Boston Shamrocks. If anyone is feeling motivated or wants to populate the Shamrocks players category, have at it! Just thought I'd bring it to this project's attention. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Auburn Tigers

So I realize it's a lot of work, and I'm guessing a lot of you know already, but Auburn wasn't known as that until 1960. It was Alabama A & M (Agricultural and Mechanical College of Alabama) from 1892 to 1899, and Alabama Tech (Alabama Polytechnic Institite) from 1899 to 1960. Shouldn't the year pages be moved to reflect the proper name of the school teams as we do for all other school team pages? I've read the Tiger mascot goes back to the start of football in 1892, so that shouldn't change .....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a WP:Commonname issue. While yes we include former names of institutions when appropriate ex. 1891 Kentucky State College Blue and Yellow football team, we also don't use it exclusively a la Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Cal State Fresno, etc. At least by 1944 the institution went by Auburn [16]. So from that point maybe we could work backwards. @MisterCake:.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
They were known as the Plainsmen for many years before Tigers. Cake (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is from Auburn University's web page (history):

Throughout the years, the institution has had four official names: •East Alabama Male College (1856-72) •Agricultural and Mechanical College (1872-99) •Alabama Polytechnic Institute (1899-1960) •Auburn University (1960-present)

Auburn Nickname

To get right to the point, Auburn's only nickname is the Tigers. We're the Auburn Tigers. Auburn has been known as the Tigers since the university first fielded a football team in 1892 to play the Georgia Bulldogs in Atlanta.

.........so if there are no objections, I'll use Alabama Tech Tigers from 1899-1959, and Alabama A&M Tigers from 1892-1898......The Plainsmen was an unofficial name.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I object to the use of Alabama Tech, from at least the beginning of the SEC unless someone can prove that any media source (and the institution) referred to the football team as anything but Auburn. I know the OFFICIAL Name was API, but the program from 44 clearly says Auburn.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Personally I agree with API, Alabama Tech before a common name of Auburn was established. However, it was established long before 1960. A program from 1958 lists the team as "Auburn", 1934 here as Auburn and even predating the SEC in 1932.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
If you use Alabama A&M for the early years, be careful about disambiguating with the current Alabama A&M. While its football team was established after 1899, that still has the potential to be pretty confusing. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm with UCO2009bluejay here. Pvmoutside, the question is not what the official name of the school, but how the football team principally was refereed to in a given year. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. What prompted my inquiry was the Clemson Tigers schedule. Clemson's early pages for Auburn (1910-1920) are showing as Alabama Polytechnic.....I'll change those links to Auburn as the given year pages show......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This page List of Southeastern Conference football standings may be of use to you, regardless of what name(s) are deemed appropriate. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This team photo would suggest that the team was known as Auburn as far back as 1913. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The 1908 team shows "Auburn" too. However, they were known as API for many years, as well as the Plainsmen. They don't seem to like ever being called the plainsmen, even though without knowing that you'd have a hell of a time with the newspapers. Cake (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Judging by the team pictures, some time between 1900 and 1908 the more popular name switches from API to Auburn. Cake (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI Fuzzy Woodruff in 1928 says Auburn are the Plainsmen and were called the Tigers in 1894.Cake (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Princeton University alumni subcategories by decade??

Does anyone know where the discussion occurred that allowed for all of the subcategories that breaks up Category:Princeton University alumni by decade? I think it's a dangerous trend to set and makes navigation unnecessarily difficult. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

2011 Oklahoma State vs. Iowa State football game AfD discussion

There is an AfD discussion for this article, in which you may be interested, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Oklahoma State vs. Iowa State football game. Fbdave (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Color boxes on conference pages

I know a few, maybe most of you, know about the colors module. Over the past year, we Frietjes and I) have worked to incorporate the module into the infoboxes. We have now established {{college color boxes}} for the conference pages, and anywhere else it may be used. It is pretty simple, you type {{college color boxes|team name}} and it will produce what is displayed in the infobox (i.e. {{college color boxes|USC Trojans}} will produce    ). I have started to incorporate these into the conference articles and will continue to do so over the next few days, as time allows. This message is to simply make everyone aware of this for future purposes. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance at Articles for Creation

Hello, folks. We have a submission at Articles for Creation that falls within the scope of your project. If accepted, that submission, Draft:2017–18 NCAA football bowl games, will be a future-class article. Would someone here be kind enough to take a look at the draft and indicate whether, in its current form, it meets your standards for such articles? I'll open a section on the draft's Talk page where you can leave any comments. Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-major college football bowls and postseason games

Each FBS team has a bowl game navbox that only includes major college bowl games. Should small college bowl games and/or other postseason games also be included? For example, Louisiana Tech played in the 1968 Grantland Rice Bowl, 1969 Grantland Rice Bowl, a few more small college bowl games and other postseason playoff games, but none are included in the bowl game navbox. What is the current policy regarding these games, and should these games also be included in the bowl game navbox? Should they be included in the navboxes be renamed to postseason games instead of bowl games? Thanks for your input. -AllisonFoley (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

List FBS bowl games only. Any others, lower tier/I-AA FCS playoffs, can be listed on the teams page.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason why? It seems like that cookie-cutter model ignores important history of some programs. It's odd when I go to 1968 Grantland Rice Bowl, and there are no navboxes. A quick glance and I see Arkansas State, East Carolina, and Fresno State include small college bowl games in their navboxes. Should those be deleted? I'm sure there are more. Would it be a good idea to include both small college and major college bowl games in the navboxes but separate them in different groups? Thanks. -AllisonFoley (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If it's significant enough to have an article about, then it should be listed in the navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Upon further review, I found 25 team bowl templates listing minor/small college bowl games: Arkansas State, Cincinnati, Drake, East Carolina, Florida State, Fresno State, Grambling State, Houston, Kent State, Louisiana College, Maine, Marshall, McNeese State, Miami (OH), Middle Tennessee, North Carolina A&T, North Carolina Central, Pepperdine, Saint Joseph's, Southern Miss, Tennessee Tech, UMass, UNAM, Washington, and West Texas A&M. Then there are also many templates that do not include minor/small college bowl games. Is the standard for inclusion 'significant enough for an article,' or should these not be included? Or something else? Thanks. -AllisonFoley (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

per-game citations in Schedule section of team season articles

@Glacier109: Recent edits have introduced multiple, per-game citations to the Schedule sections as seen in 1920 Washington Sun Dodgers football team, 1945 Washington Huskies football team, 1960 Washington Huskies football team, and 1967 Oregon Webfoots football team. The nature (per-game) and location (game venue column) of these citations is unconventional. It is generally easy to find a single source for the all elements of the team's schedule such as via the school's media guide, SportsReference.com, CFDW, or similar, but the table format has never been great at surfacing such a citation to the viewer. Thoughts on per-game citations? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For the ease of reading the schedule table, whatever citations are needed to most efficiently support it should be placed after the entire table. Nonetheless, the additional citations are valuable for expanding the article with detail about each game in another section. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there are generally references that cover all the data in the schedule table and those are preferable and should be placed outside the table. But if some data isn't available in the overall reference (like TV or game time, for example), then there should be a specific reference to cover that. Currently I think the best place for that is right next to the data it's sourcing. I can't think of another solution other than adding an additional column to the schedule for references. I also agree with Jweiss. If the information can be covered in another section, then it's probably best to place those references for that data there. Just like Infoboxes. IMO you don't need to source data in an infobox because the data should be covered in the article and referenced there. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
They've helped me expand e. g. 1905 VPI football team, 1909 VPI football team. Cake (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

AfD: Minot State Beavers football

This AfD could use some eyeballs on it, if anyone's interested. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sonny Dykes

Over the past few weeks I've had a bit on edit war going on with an IP editor at the Sonny Dykes article. He seems intent on calling Dykes a "former American football coach" in the lead because Dykes is currently employed as a offensive analyst at TCU, which technically doesn't qualify him as a coach under NCAA rules, despite that fact that he's clearly going to be responsible for managing the team's on-field performance. What we have is an awkward phrasing that suggests Dykes isn't active anymore. This IP editor clearly doesn't understand what constitutes vandalism as well. Thoughts? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

An "analyst" is clearly still a coach. Seems like more and more teams are doing this just to have more coaches without actually calling them coaches. Plus, I'm sure he will be an actual coordinator in the next couple of years somewhere so clearly still a coach. Its not like he's taking time off or becoming a broadcaster. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
He's in Category:TCU Horned Frogs football coaches too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The first 2 sentences tells us more about what he's not than what he actually is. This is silly. Lizard (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Would someone else care to clean this up? Lizard? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Current NFL players by college team navbox

Yes, folks, just when you thought you'd seen everything, we now apparently have this. Anyone have any thoughts on it? Personally, I'd hate to see this puppy start breeding out to other CFB programs. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Good god, delete that! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
So does this mean we can't have the "current St. Thomas Aquinas High School alumni in the NFL" navbox I've been working on? Shucks. Lizard (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Get rid of that travesty please. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That looks like a maintenance nightmare. At the very least I'd recommend listifying it. –Grondemar 03:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
How have we had this for a year and a half and no one brought it up before now? Lizard (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Cuz its not linked from any page. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the editor who created this template, Jmbflame21, hasn't edited since November 2015. It looks like the main article this template once linked to was List of Miami Hurricanes in the NFL, which is... impressively long, to say the least. –Grondemar 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
About as long as any other program's would be if they had articles. The only other one I know of is List of Florida Gators football players in the NFL. Most schools just have draft history articles. Lizard (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated Template:Hurricanes in the NFL for deletion. Please see discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

John Van Liew coaching tenure discrepancy

John Van Liew's article says he coached Knox College's football team from 1923–1928. However, this source shows he coached Western State Colorado University's team in 1927, also as evidenced by his inclusion on {{Western State Colorado Mountaineers football coach navbox}}. Which is correct? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It may be possible that he coached both teams at the same time. I think I've seen it before. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This, from November 1926, says he resigned at Knox to become coach at Western State. However, this from knox.edu says he was the coach from 1923 to 1928. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems like a coaching tenure Mexican standoff. He could not have coached both, as one school is in Illinois and the other in Colorado. I suppose the odds of two different John Van Liews existing at the same time, coaching college football teams hundreds of miles apart, is out of the question. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Knox just has the wrong coach listed? Maybe it was someone else in those final few years. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed this before. I think the Knox records might be inaccurate. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
So are his article and the two corresponding navboxes going to remain inaccurate? Not trying to pass the buck per se, but I was bringing it to this project's attention because there is more interest among CFB's members in correcting it than I personally have. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Would be nice to find a source establishing someone else as the Knox coach in 1927 and 1928. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
WikiOriginal-9, thanks for the research. I'm convinced that Jackson was the coach in 1927 and 1928. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Once this discussion has concluded, it should be copied to the Van Liew talk page. That way its' readily available for future editors who may run into the same source discrepancy. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

List of games?

Do we need this? Cake (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Or this? Cake (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Try this one on for size, which actually made it to GA before being delisted a few years later. Lizard (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Autoassessment

Would anyone be opposed to having User:BU RoBOT autoassess this project's unassessed pages? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Not opposed, but I think most of the unassessed pages lack a rating for any project. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently assessed all of the WP:NFL pages. As a result, the majority of the unassessed CFB articles will be assessed by this bot. I can tell because a majority of the unassessed articles are purple links (meaning I clicked on them when assessing WP:NFL). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (2nd nomination) for discussion. Lizard (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Texas Longhorns football games for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Texas Longhorns football games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Texas Longhorns football games until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Grondemar 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Big 12 Conference All-Time football team nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big 12 Conference All-Time football team. Lizard (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

NCOLLATH and GNG

For those interested in such things, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montell Cozart includes a discussion of the interplay between WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse - more problems

After multiple past instances with College Football Data Warehouse (CFDW) being infected with malware, I tried accessing the site today, only to be redirected to a page indicating that the site has been "suspended". With these recurrent problems, we really ought to use other sources. SR/College Football and/or individual school media guides often have the same information and should IMO be used instead of CFDW. Cbl62 (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Cbl62, I noticed this as well. I'm usually in contact with David DeLassus, who runs the site, fairly regularly as I find errors and send them to him for correction. But I haven't head from him in some time. The CFDW field has already been removed from Template:Infobox college coach. If we can't get some assurance about the site's stability in he near future we can broach what to do about Template:CFBCR. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Whitman College mascot change

Hello all - Just a note that Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington changed from the "Fighting Missionaries" to the "Blues" late last year (see ref). I came across this as I created a category for basketball coaches. The school has been using the new name this academic year. Just alerting you so you can change any relevant football,articles. Also, I nominated all the sports categories for renaming, if someone could go here and check my work – I am not confident that I did it correctly (mass nominations are complicated). Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rikster2: thanks for the heads up. The Whitman football program folded following the 1976 season, so this name change does not apply to the football program. I opposed the name changes for the football categories, but supported the others. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, whoops! Thanks for the catch. Rikster2 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible addition to individual games

I've created a table for individual games, and added it to the 1957 Ohio State/TCU game. Is this considered improvement-enough to keep it, or is it something superfluous that isn't really needed? I feel that seeing the passing/rushing/turn over stats helps to see why the outcome of the game ended as it did. The current tables are for scoring by quarter, and for the scores themselves, but they lack a bit by neglecting the turnovers and the actual plays (passing/rushing) made. I had intended to also include time of possession, but it's tough to find for older games, so I didn't include it for the example game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Ohio_State_Buckeyes_football_team#TCU)

Thoughts? Keep it? Dump it?

JBrenn (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_18&oldid=1136053221"