Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Dec2006

message: Alright - I've noticed as I've been editing team articles that there are a gigantic amount of different infoboxes for each article.
I've seen a total of seven (so far) different types of team infoboxes, and I think it's about time we began to standardize a bit. Some of them can be broken down into categories of similarity, others stand alone, but I'm linking to the team pages which have which.
The Loose Styles:
Loose Icon-Only Style
Penn State Nittany Lions football
Loose Icon and Title Style
San Diego State Aztecs football
Loose Icon and Title with Helmet Style
LSU Tigers football
Loose Icon and Title with Helmet Style with Labels
Hawaii Warriors football
The Block Styles:
Block Style without Title
Michigan Wolverines football
Block Style including financial info without Title
Ohio State Buckeyes football
The Stand-Alone Block:
Different Block Style with Title
Iowa Hawkeyes football
Some of these are radically different than others - from looking around, the majority seem to be with the 'block style', though many football articles still lack one. I ask that we reach a consensus before we add more infoboxes for us to change in the near future. Which should it be? --NomaderTalk 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up, this is exactly what the project is for. I like the Michigan one the best. I think financial info shouldn't be on there, or if it is, at the bottom. Ohio State's was WAY too long too. I think Michigan's should be the base and we can add a bunch of info/fields from there. --MECU≈talk 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent had a chance to go through all of them closely yet but I must say I do like the Michigan one but I really dislike the grid lines inside of the template. Thats my personal preference.--NMajdan•talk 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in that Michigan's is the bestat the current moment in time and with the fact that the grid is ugly. Perhaps we should make a fusion of Michigan's good information and Penn State's rather classy looking infobox? I like Penn State's, but the lack of a title and some information is a big downside. --NomaderTalk 04:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nomader that the Michigan and Penn State's should be combined. Just my two cents. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above that we should combine the two.  We need a standard order of presenting the information as well, i.e. do rivals go before or after stadium in the infobox? It would be nice if we could transform this into a template where we can just do something like rivals=Oregon Ducks|Stadium=Reser Stadium etc. etc. VegaDark 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (reset) I fully plan to make a template, once we get some agreement on what needs to be in it. I'll probably do it next week sometime unless someone beats me to it. --MECU≈talk 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't care for the Michigan box, but I think it's mostly the lines that cause that.  I really like the look of the Penn State one, though.  I figure we'll need team logo, name, coach, home stadium (seating capacity), colors, mascot, nickname, fight song name, conference championships, national championships, number of all-americans (maybe), over-all record (with maybe breakdowns by era too), maybe athletic director.  I'll keep thinking, but I bet that would cover most of the info we want.z4ns4tsu\talk 17:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't like the 'look' of the Michigan one either, but it has most of the information we'd need in the infobox - yet, the Penn State one just looks classy. One big thing I do like though about the Penn State infobox is that it lists the championship years on it, instead of having large annoying lists in the pages. If we could somehow incorporate that into what Michigan has now, I think we'd have a good infobox. --NomaderTalk 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So I think we've agreed we want the content of the Michigan box with the appearance and layout of the Penn State box.--NMajdan•talk 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With a title thrown in there as well - the one main problem other than info on the Penn State box. Other than that, I think that's the consensus. --NomaderTalk 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No I haven't. Looks good. Some suggestions: Center the Italicized headers? Or push them out a little more? Also, maybe add a Conference Record under Team Records?  Perhaps Conference Titles shouldn't just be a number, since then you could specify what conference(s) it was? ie, 2 Big 12, 5 Big 8, etc? Also, maybe a field for starting year of football? Or number of years (less useful). But really, it does look good. I've see the same color problem on other templates too. --MECU≈talk 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments Mecu. I moved the italicized headers over a little more. I can still move it more or just center it. I think conference titles should be a number because win I visit more athletic sites, thats how they list it. But technically, anything can go there. Its not like that field invalidates any number or has some isnumber() function attached to it. I will add the starting year for football as well. Also, I moved your comment to the template talk page as well so we can switch this conversation to the proper place.--NMajdan•talk 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Infoboxes 

message: Is the Texas Bowl in any way, shape or form connected to the EV1.net Houston Bowl? If they aren't, I assume we should split the Texas Bowl article. Or, do we keep Houston Bowl results in the Texas Bowl article. Your responses will help resolve a dispute on if previous results from the Houston Bowl should or should not be kept in the article. Thanks If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Bowl 

message: I'm trying to start using the pages of the form Name Nickname football.   But because they're fairly new, most links for all kinds of stuff -- college teams' opponents, NFL players' alma maters, etc. -- have links to the school instead of the football program.  I change these manually here and there, but I think it would be good to have a bot to do this systematically.   If I get a chance I might write something but if someone else wants to do it, more power to them.  - PhilipR 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How will you differentiate between the two? For instance, if I said "NFL Pro John Doe graduated from the University of XYZ," I believe it should go to the school's wiki article. If I said "NFL Pro John Doe played for the University of XYZ," then it should go to the football page. But a bot wouldn't be able to make that decision. Also, what if there is no 'Name Nickname football' article? By guidelines set by the CFB WikiProject, you first try to link to the year-team page, if available and applicable (2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team), then the 'Name Nickname football' article (Oklahoma Sooners football), then school athletics article (Oklahoma Sooners), then school article (University of Oklahoma). --NMajdan•talk 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Before this would work we would need to make an article about the football teams for each school.  There are many schools that still don't even have articles about their athletics, let alone their football team. But I agree that it would be nice, in the long run, to link to either the football season or the football team articles in many cases. VegaDark 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above section "Bowl Games" for more opinions on this subject (my opinion is listed there also). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bot we need - football links instead of university links 

message: There is a straw poll being conducted here to come to a consensus on what the format of the season schedule chart should look like, please add your input. VegaDark 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Team season article format changes

message: An unregister user keeps changing Tennessee's national championships to 6, which is in correct. Is there anything that can be done about this? Dlong 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll block unregistered users from editting it temporarily.  Hopefully they will quickly lose interest.  Johntex\talk 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, just gotta be aware and keep track of the article's history. College football articles (especially schools) are prime targets for vandalism.--NMajdan•talk 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear-cut vandalism, as the user is claiming that some extremely minor polls, which voted Tennessee #1 in these years, count as national championships. See http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html. However, the additions are pretty stupid; anyone want to claim Florida State won the national championship in 1994? (not PSU or Nebraska). So, if I could do a favor and ask some of you guys to watchlist it, as the guy will likely return after the sprotect is expired. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is not clear-cut vandalism.  So I did not block the user or warn the user about vandalism.  My intention would be to leave the sprotect in place for about a week.  In that amount of time, the editor will hopefully either (a) lose interest completely (b) realize they have to discuss and gain conensus instead of just reverting (c) at least register a user account which will make enforcement of WP:3RR somewhat easier. Johntex\talk 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably isn't or won't be the only instance this will occur. Schools probably claim a different number than the NCAA recognizes plenty of times. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is to include both ideas (aka, NPOV). Something like: "The NCAA officially recognizes Tennessee with 4 national championships in 19xx, 19xx, 19xx and 19xx. However, Tennessee claims 6 with the additional years of 19xx and 19xx. In 19xx, the yyyyyyy poll and in 19xx the zzzzzzz poll voted Tennessee the national champion. These polls are not commonly referred or claimed and the general consensus is that Tennessee has just 4 national championships." I know, literary works of art. (copied to Talk:Tennessee Volunteers football) --MECU≈talk 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this general idea, but I have two concerns:  (1) I don't think the NCAA officially recognizes ANY football championships.  They may list them, and refer to them, but I don't think they really recognize or sanction them.  (2) for the purposes of team infoboxes and tables listing multiple teams, I think the WikiProject College Football should adopt and stick with a standard of which polls we will use.  Beyond that, I think it is fine to include prose in each team article that explains discrepencies and counter-claims (with sources of course). (copied to Talk:Tennessee Volunteers football) Johntex\talk 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I like the idea that the WP:CFB determine what is valid, it's not our job: that would be original. We can just reference the NCAA and then the University and put it all out there. For us to decide that we'll only go along with the NCAA I think is to ignore a side to the story. We could certainly say that in the infobox, only the generally recognized (aka common, NCAA published) NCs should be listed and others claimed by the school should be talked about in the article. But to say we will only put out what the NCAA publishes isn't being very NPOV, I think. (text not copied) --MECU≈talk 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you may have misunderstood me and I think that we may actually be in agreement.  I am saying that for the purposes of infoboxes and combined tables where lots of teams are listing, that we can stick with one or more of the most generally recognized polls.   We have to make some sort of determination about what to include there.  That is not NPOV, it is a reflection of the reality of the situation that some polls enjoy more wide-spread acceptance than others.  In the text of an article on an individual team, we should be able to go into any amount of detail and discuss any polls that some author feels is relevant to discuss.  Johntex\talk 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sound like we agree. I'm on board with that then. --MECU≈talk 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'm sure, if we have to, we can find sources that stipulate that some poll are more recognized than others. It shouldn't be too hard. -Patstuarttalk|edits 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennessee Volunteer Football

message: I requested semi-protection of the Bowl Championship Series page and it was granted. I think it should stay until at least a week after the National Championship game on January 8, 2007. If the vandals find their way to other pages and it becomes too much, you can request semi-protection as well at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. There should be several IPs and have occurred frequently over the recent period. --MECU≈talk 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowl Championship Series

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wilhoit they are going after this article.  Some people still don't get it.CJC47 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will you guys just take a look at this?  Let me know if you disagree with my opinion. CJC47 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More help! Player page being attacked

message: Just stumbled across an article that appears to have been created about a month ago: List of Current NCAA Division 1-A Coaches. Could use a little help filling in the gaps. It is also an orphaned article so could face deletion in the future.--NMajdan•talk 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to List of current NCAA Division I-A coaches. I think this is a good time to plug the Master Team Table. --MECU≈talk 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to List of current NCAA Division I-A football coaches for accuracy before any more links get created. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone think it might be a good idea to have a by year version of this article?  Taking it a step further, we could even have something like List of NCAA Division I-A teams, 2006 could have team/coach/bowl/record/conference.  That's probably something useful to have for each year, if for nothing else, than as a central point of reference for articles. BigDT 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can pretty much buy that; sounds like a useful reference.  But I think it's almost a subsection (except for the size issue) of 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season so perhaps it's 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season results?  Section it by conference with each table containing team/coach/record/notes(includes championship games, bowl, anything notable to highlight.) AUTiger ʃ talk/work 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaches article 

message: Should we do awards for the best 2006 team page?  Best additions by posters and the like? CJC47 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I'm not big on that stuff.  If you think someone has done a good job, give them a barnstar, but beyond that, I really think we've done a good job of keeping the team rivalries out of here and it would be nice to see it stay that way.  BigDT 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards? 

message: Following the naming convention used for 2006 Rose Bowl I have created stubs for two of the upcoming bowl games: 2006 Alamo Bowl and 2007 Rose Bowl.  I would love to see us have an informative article for every single bowl game, but that may not happen.  Therefore, I am not going to systematically create a stub for every game.  I created these two because I personally plan to contribute to them. 
We already have a page for BCS National Championship Game 2006.  (Note that the naming convention we used there is different from other bowl games, where we have previously put the year after the title.)
Our project is active enough and has enough members that I think we should certainly create 2007 Fiesta Bowl, 2007 Sugar Bowl, and 2007 Orange Bowl so I will go ahead and create stubs for these.  Beyond that, I think the creation of bowl game articles should be dependent upon whether someone is willing to take the initiative and make a good article.  Johntex\talk 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you know z4ns4tsu and I will be on the Fiesta Bowl article.--NMajdan•talk 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just created the above-mentioned BCS bowl articles.  Someone please double-check me.  In the copy-and-pasting, I don't want to have Louisville playing in more than one bowl!  Also, I'm not sure which team is home and which is away for all these.  So, I added an invisible comment that we need to check on that for each one.  Johntex\talk 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (Sigh) someday hopefully we will be cleared to use logos in the way that other major media sources use them.  I do kind of like the idea of having the linescore immediately at the top.  The box score might be better further down the page?  Other info I've thought of to consider for the info box is Attendance and Weather. Johntex\talk 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I didn't mean to imply the box score at the top as well. Just thought there might be a need for it and standardizing it would be good for Wikipedia. Though it would have to involve start and end templates which I'm not yet good at, but all the more reason to go for it and learn. --MECU≈talk 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please take a look and provide some feedback: Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader. My thoughts are to eliminate the white background so it's more transparent looking. I'm not so sure about the blue outline (maybe a different color? maybe involve school colors somehow?) I use a 1600x1200 monitor, and I tried reducing the size and seeing how it looks, but I'd like some input from others that use smaller sizes. Is it too big? Should I take the "nowrap" off of the middle column? Are the fonts just too big? Should I go smaller overall? Any comments are appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved the template so it can begin being used on pages: . --MECU≈talk 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowl game articles

message: Soccer pages have a nifty little template Template:Nft that lets you easily specify the name of the country and produce a link to such-and-such national football team.   It requires a redir for countries like the US and Australia that don't have that as the name of the article, and I think transcluding it is highly deprecated, but other than that it seems to work great.   I created similar at Template:Cfb.   Sadly everything will require a redir because there's no way to intuit the school nickname which is in each article's title.   If there are any nuances of MediaWiki template markup that I'm missing, please advise me.   Cheers, PhilipR 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided we were better off with , which lets you specify the team nickname to avoid redirs.   And be sure to use them with subst: so that we don't create a mess of transclusion. - PhilipR 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: <nowiki>{{cfb}}</nowiki> 

message: Can someone knowledgable about it give Heisman Trophy a once over?  It has been vandalized quite a bit with partial reverts mixed in.  I just want to make sure that I haven't missed anything and that there aren't any little pieces of mis-information vandalism. BigDT 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me. I do take a slight issue with the third paragraph. I don't know if the trophy serves as a representation of a player's chances in the NFL. Look at some of the more recent winners: Jason White, Eric Crouch, Chris Weinke, Danny Weurffel. Granted there are some big names but the number of big NFL players and NFL busts are about equal. Just my opinion. But overall the article looks good.--NMajdan•talk 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heisman Trophy]] 

message: From here on, if anyone comes across an AFD regarding a college football project related item, please list it here on the Project talk page so that the members of the project can assist in assessment of the article. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will you guys just take a look at this?  Let me know if you disagree with my opinion. CJC47 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Notices 

message: Just came across this new community on Wikipedia. May be worth checking out in case we need something in the future. Graphic Lab.--NMajdan•talk 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the addition.  I had a photo that I have wanted fixed for quite a while. CJC47 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Lab 

message: I need advice from the more experienced editors: I think everyone, outside of a few seemingly tireless, fringe (not normal) LSU fans, have moved past the 2003 split-title fiasco, but the edits keep on coming.  For the past year they've been the occasional anon IPs, now I have two new users abusing this over and over for the past few days on University of Southern California Trojans football, 2003 NCAA Division I-A football season, NCAA Division I-A national football championship, and USC Trojans (thank heavens for the "user contribution" button!).  What should I do?  With these new accounts it's seems to have become a little different than when it was merely anons, but I feel a little uncomfortable handing out warnings since I'm self-professed USC alum and "Watchlist Guardian" for many of its articles.  --Bobak 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking is usually the best thing. Try to get all involved people to talk in one location. Try to make a compromise that everyone (or most) can agree on. Is their viewpoint that LSU isn't a co-NC? I couldn't really tell what the problem was easily. Involving some of the dispute resolution processes may be needed if you can't talk it out. --MECU≈talk 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't call myself an "experienced" editor (I generally just fix typos, bad links, and revert vandalism), but I'm intending to treat this as vandalism and give the standard warnings. I've already notified one user about this. Dlong 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle a situation: LSU-related vandalism of USC's 2003-related pages 

message: Was there ever any criteria set for someone/thing to be part of the WP:CFB? I find article where the guy is a NFL player, which 99% of the time means he was a CFB player. But should he be in the WP:CFB? Same for some coaches that were assistant coaches somewhere in CFB but are now NFL coaches. If someone is in the NFL project, should they probably not be in the CFB project? There will be exceptions, like if JoePa went to the NFL, but generally. Any advice please. --MECU≈talk 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is almost the exact opposite.  If they played football in college, and we have an article about them, then they should be part of WP:CFB.  Part of their article needs to be about their college career and we should step up to trying to improve at least that section of those articles. The fact that they moved on to other things (be it the NFL, or a careeer in real estate) does not change the fact that college football was a part of their lives and they were a part of college football. Johntex\talk 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria to have an article in WP:CFB 

message: Template:USFBullsCoach is up for deletion.  I do see their point since there has only been one coach, but one of the stated goals of the project page was to have a coaches template for every team.  Someone even made a chart. I believe there are three templates that only have one coach South Florida, FIU and FAU.  FIU will be getting a new coach soon. Since I did a lot of work to get one for every 1A team (I made 40 to 50 of them), I would like to keep it so please go to the Deletion page and comment one way or another so we can get this resolved.   Thank you 09er 13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the discussion is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 15. Johntex\talk 16:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:USFBullsCoach deletion? 

message: Georgia Bulldogs football under E. E. Jones is an article that I created in accordance with the discussion at above.  It seems to me that presentations of the historical records of teams is important in light of the state goal: To make Wikipedia one of the premier online resources on college football.  I have followed the format of combining all seasons under a coach into one article - unfortunately, this particular coach only coached one season.  In any event, please comment one way or the other at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Bulldogs football under E. E. Jones so that this can be resolved.--Tlmclain  | Talk 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: College football article being considered for deletion

message: Was there ever any criteria set for someone/thing to be part of the WP:CFB? I find article where the guy is a NFL player, which 99% of the time means he was a CFB player. But should he be in the WP:CFB? Same for some coaches that were assistant coaches somewhere in CFB but are now NFL coaches. If someone is in the NFL project, should they probably not be in the CFB project? There will be exceptions, like if JoePa went to the NFL, but generally. Any advice please. --MECU≈talk 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is almost the exact opposite.  If they played football in college, and we have an article about them, then they should be part of WP:CFB.  Part of their article needs to be about their college career and we should step up to trying to improve at least that section of those articles. The fact that they moved on to other things (be it the NFL, or a careeer in real estate) does not change the fact that college football was a part of their lives and they were a part of college football. Johntex\talk 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria to have an article in WP:CFB 

message: Template:USFBullsCoach is up for deletion.  I do see their point since there has only been one coach, but one of the stated goals of the project page was to have a coaches template for every team.  Someone even made a chart. I believe there are three templates that only have one coach South Florida, FIU and FAU.  FIU will be getting a new coach soon. Since I did a lot of work to get one for every 1A team (I made 40 to 50 of them), I would like to keep it so please go to the Deletion page and comment one way or another so we can get this resolved.   Thank you 09er 13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the discussion is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 15. Johntex\talk 16:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:USFBullsCoach deletion? 

message: Georgia Bulldogs football under E. E. Jones is an article that I created in accordance with the discussion at above.  It seems to me that presentations of the historical records of teams is important in light of the state goal: To make Wikipedia one of the premier online resources on college football.  I have followed the format of combining all seasons under a coach into one article - unfortunately, this particular coach only coached one season.  In any event, please comment one way or the other at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Bulldogs football under E. E. Jones so that this can be resolved.--Tlmclain  | Talk 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: College football article being considered for deletion

message: It seems  is to be used generically on bowl game articles, even though the header states it's for the 2006-07 season. Would anyone object to making this season specific, such that it would be named "2006 NCAA bowl games" or something similar, where then, for each season we would have another template that would link only to the year-specific bowl games (2007 Rose Bowl, not just Rose Bowl). Then, this template could be used just to link to the generic bowl game articles (Rose Bowl). Any thoughts? --MECU≈talk 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying then that each of these articles would have two seemingly identical templates, one that links to the generic bowl game article and one that links to the year-specific bowl game?--NMajdan•talk 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-07 Bowl Game Template 

message: I made this infobox: , before I saw yours.  An example of it can be seen at BCS National Championship Game 1998.  I suggest yours for upcoming bowl and this one for past bowls.  What does everyone think? CJC47 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: Somebody brought up an issue with . I'd love some input on how to resolve. I'm worried that it would be a lot of extra coding and complicating of the infobox to satisfy a very tiny percentage of the overall numbers of articles that would use it.--NMajdan•talk 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need recommendations for college coach infobox 

message: The offseason is fast approaching, and with it comes the termination of the weekly updates that many of our pages require. With this "extra time," I believe its time for us to stop focusing on updating pages and start focusing on improving the quality of existing articles. I propose that we establish a peer review section similar to WP:MHPR. Its time for the project to start concentrating improving its WP:GA and WP:FA numbers. If we do this, I can try to add a peer-review and old-peer-review field to the Talk page banner. This, of course, is just a first step. Feel free to discuss further improvements to the WikiProject.--NMajdan•talk 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone quite new to the Project and fairly new to Wikipedia overall, I am wondering how this relates to the already existing Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment.  In other words, if the group is actively assessing and reassessing articles as part of its mission, is a separate peer review section also needed?--Tlmclain  | Talk 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The Assessment department assessing the quality and importance of existing articles. The peer review department would review articles before nominating for GA or FA. Since you're new to Wikipedia, go view the Military History Wikiproject. It is much larger than ours and has a broader scope so implementing a lot of their features into our WP would be extreme but you can see how things are done.--NMajdan•talk 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, now I see the relationship and agree that it probably is needed.  By the way, I have very cautiously been assessing a few articles.  If you run into any where I seem to be off-base, please let me know.--Tlmclain  | Talk 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need of "peer-review" section for the WikiProject 

message: So I'm thinking about taking the jump and nominating Oklahoma Sooners football for WP:FA. I'd like whoever can to read the article and give me advice on what can be done to improve the article. Mostly, I'm looking for advice on how to lengthen the lead and strengthen the wording and content.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not looking good.--NMajdan•talk 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but we are learning a lot.  Thanks for trying.--Tlmclain  | Talk 15:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we are learning a lot. I have to admit that some of the comments and objections on there really don't make sense to me, especially the one about the mother in Africa, but I think that most of them are going to lead us to a lot better of an article. My main concern is that we won't be able to satisfy some of their concerns about NPOV and POV because the article must have a positive slant when the history is mostly positive. Anywho, I added my two cents to the discussion without voting since I'm not really a neutral editor. z4ns4tsu\talk 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May go for Featured Article 

message: I got impatient at the lack of responses on the peer review. I feel I'd have more time today and tomorrow to make whatever changes the FA reviewers will request so I have nominated this article for FA. Please follow the progress here.--NMajdan•talk 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not looking good.--NMajdan•talk 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but we are learning a lot.  Thanks for trying.--Tlmclain  | Talk 15:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we are learning a lot. I have to admit that some of the comments and objections on there really don't make sense to me, especially the one about the mother in Africa, but I think that most of them are going to lead us to a lot better of an article. My main concern is that we won't be able to satisfy some of their concerns about NPOV and POV because the article must have a positive slant when the history is mostly positive. Anywho, I added my two cents to the discussion without voting since I'm not really a neutral editor. z4ns4tsu\talk 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article nominated for FA

message: ...add our templates/infoboxes to the list at Wikipedia:Infobox templates#Sports. I've already added , and I'm sure the rest of our templates should or could be added to the list. Merry Christmas! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. Didn't know about that page. I added  and I'll try to add more later if somebody doesn't beat me.--NMajdan•talk 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's probably in our best interest to... 

message: Would anyone object to my setting up auto-archiving of this talk page? What would be an appropriate time? 30 days? --MECU≈talk 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain to me how the auto-archiving works? Yes, this talk page needs to be archived but how does the bot determine what to archive? Will it archive everything every 30 days, including ongoing discussions or can the bot see which sections haven't had an active post in x number of days? I don't think that sections that have had a comment within the past 14 days should be archived.--NMajdan•talk 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions. I was planning on using Werdnabot and you can learn more about it at User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto. If it was set for "30" days (for example) only sections that hadn't had a comment in the past 30 days would be archived. The bot would come through once a day and check. It gets the "unused"-ness by reading the dates that people sign with using the auto-sig feature. I would put to archive into YearMonth form so everything archived in December 2006 would go into /archive/December2006archive, for example. I'd be fine with 14 days too. --MECU≈talk 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, ok. I think I'd be ok with a bot archiving discussions without a comment for the past 14-21 days.--NMajdan•talk 17:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeframe may need to be at least 30 days.  In what has been a very active discussion (Proposed new minimum guideline for individual team seasons), there was a break in the from 25 October 2006 to 8 December 2006.--Tlmclain  | Talk 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could add a "highlights" section that is self-maintained (the bot wouldn't do this) at the top of this talk page. If an items gets archived and someone thinks it should be "highlighted" then they put a link in there to it. Someone with more questions (as was the case there) could ask the new question here and refer to the archived discussion, unless they believed the archived disuccsion needed revival, but then they should post here they are starting it up again on the archive page, or is that even appropriate? The proposed new minimum... should definately go on the highlights box; items like that. --MECU≈talk 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've set the page up to auto archive and set it to 30 days. Once an item is archived, probably tomorrow, we can setup the "highlights" section. If anyone knows a template or table setup I can use/copy, I'd appreciate a link. --MECU≈talk 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto archive of this talk page

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebration of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I discovered this cool trick that making linking easier: If a link has a ( ) in it for disambig (or whatever) reasons, you can link like this:  and it will show up as "Blah" (no "(darn brackets)"!). For example:  looks like: Dan Hawkins. Awesome, huh? --MECU≈talk 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing I just discovered about this, is that when Wiki saves, it will change the link internally from  to Dan Hawkins. So, when you edit it again, it will look like normal. So, changing them from the displayed way to the | formatted way is useless since it will just put it all back anyways. --MECU≈talk 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very neat.  Thanks for the tip! Johntex\talk 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm.....thats interesting. That may make templates easier to create, correct? Now, instead of having, say, a coach's display name and a coach's link, we would only need to ask for the link and then have all coach's links fed into that format. Since  and  will both link to the correct article.--NMajdan•talk 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that way NMajdan, but until I see it work, I won't put it in. And, it may be less clear for non-advanced editors like us. The extra coding for that is minimal. --MECU≈talk 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Related to this is another cool trick I just discovered. Instead of linking to templates like this: , you link like this: {{}}, and the Pipe trick will know that just NAME should be the displayed link, so when it saves it will look like {{NAME}}. Why is this way better? Because it doesn't force wikipedia to make a inclusion of the  template, so for pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable where that's hundreds of times, it starts to drag on the server. While this way is better, there's nothing wrong with using the other way once in awhile, on a page that doesn't get used a lot or talk pages like this. Seems like there should be a template that does this, subst: the tl template doesn't work. --MECU≈talk 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool Trick 

message: Hello, I am getting ready to propose 2005 Texas Longhorn football team for consideration as a featured article.  The article has had one reveiw already and I believe all issues raised there have been addressed.  I have also used the semi-automated review script to look for small things that need to be changed.  The article is meticulously referenced with 121 in-line sources.  It contains both free-use images and appropriate fair-use images.  It attempts to follow the standards set out by the relevant wiki projects.  
In watching the nomintaion of the OU football program, I see that the OU article has received some objections on the grounds of supposedly being overly positive and for listing too-many awards.  I have reviewed the 2006 UT article in light of those objections and I am prepared to argue that every positive thing said is relevant and attributed to a specific source.  As for the awards and accomplishments, I think all the ones listed in the UT article are notable and justifiable, but I'd like to get more feedback from other editors so I invite you to review the article if you please. Johntex\talk 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested peer review here.  Good luck to everyone still playing college football as I head into the off-season.  Have a Happy New Year!  Johntex\talk 00:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Review

message: I'm ready to try and put Fifth Down up for GA. I had a peer review on it a month ago and believe I covered everything quite well. I'd like some looks from some more CFB oriented folks before I try. Any comments are appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fifth Down]] for GA (almost) 

message: As suggested by Terryfoster, NCAA Division I-A national football championship should be a part of this discussion.  I have spent some time looking at that article and it seems to be full of related problems.  For example, after seeming to conclude that the College Football Data Warehouse is authoratative here, it goes on to ignore CFDW in a number of places.  Here are just two instances: #1 the article asserts that Notre Dame has 13 national championships here, when CFDW only claims 12 for Notre Dame and Notre Dame itself only claims 11 in its Wikipedia article or in its 2006 media guide; #2 the article lists Wisconsin as a national champion in 1942 here, when CFDW instead recognizes Ohio State and Georgia as National Champions and Wisconsin was named #1 in only one poll and did not even win the Big Ten Championship.  
In order to achieve our Project's stated goal of making Wikipedia one of the premier online resources on college football, I think we are going to need to make sure that complete information regarding national championships is made available and understandable (to even the non-football fan) in the various relevant articles and in team infoboxes.  This will not be easy, but we cannot limit the definition of national championships to "wire champions only" on the one hand and we cannot expand it to include any team that is named #1 in even just one poll. I remain opposed to the "wire national championships" approach and think that NCAA Division I-A national football championship ought to present a listing of consensus national champions (including pre-1936) AND also present all possible national champions as reflected in the various polls.  The article could explain how the consensus champs are named (CFDW represents one way, there may be others).  Team infoboxes should match the consenus national champs that are in NCAA Division I-A national football championship and any differences between the team infobox and the number of championships claimed by the school itself (if any) could be explained in the article and/or in notes.--Tlmclain  | Talk 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reasons outlined in the discussion above, I am categorically opposed to any weighing of the sources and attempting to divine a "consensus" champion.  Not only does this suggested approach raise serious OR concerns, there is no accepted way to define a "consensus" national champion to begin with.  This proposal is bound to result in tabulations subject to considerable controversy and edit warring.  I believe this suggestion raises far more problems and controversy than it figures to solve.JDD18 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also been a lot of negative sportsfancruft vandalism on that page (i.e. LSU fans deleting USC's '03 share, etc).  Frankly, when it comes down two it, I think it's pretty acceptable to all parties involved in this extensive, important discussion to have a combination of "(wire) national titles" and "Claimed national titles".  That would allow each page to sort out the arguments for the disputed claims. --Bobak 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NCAA Division I-A national football championship]]

message: Does it make sense to make these collapsible?  I tested adding collapsible to the class in  and it seemed to work, but I am generally afraid to touch these templates. --Tlmclain  | Talk 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely positively not collapseable. At least, they should always be forced open and have the hide/show option so someone could collapse them if they wanted I guess, but this data is generally important to whatever article it's included in. --MECU≈talk 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that would really be necessary - a team's schedule is generally a pretty important component of a yearly article, and it's not like they're exceedingly large so as to warrant collapsing them down. I can see how that sort of thing would be more useful if you were listing multiple schedules on one page, or when using the yearly record templates to describe a team's entire yearly history or a coach with a long tenure, though. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapsible?

message: Nmajdan: it looks like you added the attendance functionality, but the Schedule End template doesn't span correctly if I have both attendance and rank. Example: 2002 Penn State Nittany Lions football team -- Billma 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix that, thank you. I was wondering if that would be an issue but I couldn't find an instance where it was. Thank you.--NMajdan•talk 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attendance