Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment

message: I blatently copied the Military page on this topic and converted to college football.
The importance scale is open for discussion, as in creating it, it was hard to define the levels. Generally, current information should be rated higher and more global information covering all of college football should be rated higher. Perhaps, for example, a person should rate an article on it's currentness and globalness on a scale of 0 to 5 and add the two numbers and if it's 8-10 it should be top, 6-7 high, 4-5 mid, 2-3 low and 0-1 why does it exist? Thus, items about the current season would automatically get a 5 plus the globalness, (say a team page) would get a 1 or 2 so it would be a 6-7 and rated high. An item about a current player would be the same. An NFL player, if currently playing in the NFL would be a 4, if retired a 3 or 2 depending on how long ago. Let me try and sort this out with a chart:
*Current (0-5 points)
** Articles that cover more than this (team page?) should take the value when the most current info of the team. A current team, 5 points, a defunct team, whenever their last season was.
** This year or last year, 5 points
** A few years ago, 4 points
** A decade ago, 3 points
** A generation ago, 2 points
** General Historical Info, 1 point
*Globalness
**Covers all of college football, 5 points (BCS, NCAA)
**Covers a general event (Rose Bowl), 4 points
**Covers a general group (Conference), 3 points
**Covers a player, team, specific event, 1 points
*Bonus points for signifigance (up to 3 points?)
**More important items, must be generally agreed upon
***Joe Paterno
Still seems fairly random. I guess it can't be an exact science. Mecu 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning discussion

message: :It certainly can't be an exact science but it is a start.  I notice that Big Bertha has been tagged Low importance while Sooner Schooner has been tagged medium.  My first thought was that they should both be the same level since they are each a tradition of a major college team.  However, on reflection, I think the Sooner Schooner is a more famous symbol of OU than Big Bertha is of Texas.  Hook 'em Horns and Bevo are both more famous and should probably be ranked higher. Johntex\talk 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing nothing but rating for hours. I rated Big Bertha Low since it was a unique tradition. I almost gave it Mid since it's a special college football tradition, but since it's not the mascot it doesn't matter. One should think about it like this, I think: If someone knew nothing about college football, what would you tell them? What is more important? A mascot seems to be Mid, and Big Bertha seems Low. The more important players, coaches, schools, history, rivalries, bowls — the things that make college football college football should be higher. Special traditions like that are unique to college football, so it's a grey area. Besides, it's quite well developed (though that may be the exception to items like this since the  people are active) and doesn't really need us to take a big look at it. It's hard to classify everything into 4 categories without there being some dispute since there are so many shades of grey. If you want to change a rating class or importance by 1 level, I wouldn't have any problem with that. More than 1 level and there should be clear evidence for a reason for change or discussion is needed. The 1 level up or down should be only allowed once and if conflict arises, a discussion should occur. Mecu 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially agree with you, but not fully.  For example, but I disagree about Hook 'em Horns.  This is a major symbol of UT and is virtually synonymous with UT football.  It is also used an insult and taunt by opposing teams like OU that don't have their own hand symbols.  It is well known across college football.  It is far more important to college football than the mascot of the "119th team".  It is also far more important to college football than something that happened in one game, such as Fifth Down.  I won't change the rating myself since I am a major contributor to the article.  Also, as I have said over on the main project Talk page - I think this whole system can use some refinement.  I know you have been putting a lot of work into these rankings, but I think major systems like this should be discussed and refined first, before someone spends a lot of time utilizing them. Johntex\talk 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Popularity should increase importance. I re-read the guideline listed above the table which I'll quote here: they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football. Thus, the key item should be popularity. So the BCS schools should be higher than all the others and all other divisions. NFL players/coaches increased in rating as well. I think in general I've been following this with a few exception where I'll read a stub on a coach and see they're listed in the hall of fame so I'll put them High instead of Mid (or Low) just because of that, which now seems wrong. Mecu 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think we all agree with that. Johntex\talk 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That is, I think, the best policy. Z4ns4tsu 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Miami Orange Bowl hasn't been rated by WP:CFB, it's not even tagged as part of the WP:CFB. --MECU≈talk 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance ratings

message: There were several awards, like the Maxwell Award, that were rated at Top. I went ahead, was bold and changed them to low. I left the Heisman Trophy at Top. My question is whether or not those should be low.  Bornagain4 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd saw awards that are 2nd level (ie, not Heisman) should be High since they are both important, and cyclic in popularity so that it should receive enough attention. Someone who hears "so and so won the Maxwell Award" then wonders and searches for information on the Maxwell Award would want a suitably nice article written on it. --Mecu 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Deal, I'll switch it. Bornagain4 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards at Top 

message: We had a discussion awhile back about how to classify certain articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#A new way of looking at things. I've taken those determinations and compiled a list below. Please review. Maybe this should be included on the main page for people to refer to when ranking articles.
*Core
**Pages generically related to understanding the game of college football (e.g. College football, Bowl Championship Series).
***TOP
*Teams
**Pages related in a generic way to the current season (e.g. 2007 Fiesta Bowl)
***The current football season (e.g. 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season)
****TOP
***Otherwise
****HIGH
**The main football article (if it exists) of the top 25 football programs in modern times (by winning percentage - e.g. Texas Longhorn Athletics, Oklahoma Sooners football)
***HIGH
**The main football article (if it exists) of all other Division I-A programs.
***MID
**An article on any specific team season if they won or shared (AP, Coaches or BCS only) a national title since 1995 (e.g. 2005 Texas Longhorn football team).
***HIGH
**An article on the specific teams about to play in the BCS bowls (once known) or the ones that just played in the most recent BCS bowls through the off-season.
***HIGH
**An article on any other specific team's single season (all 2006 team seasons would be in this group until the BCS bids are announced)
***Top 25 team (e.g. 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team).
****MID
***Otherwise (e.g. 2006 Washington Huskies football team).
****LOW
**An article on any DI-AA team.
***LOW
*Players & Coaches
**An article on a specific person in the college football hall of fame or who is a recipient of a major college award (Heisman + ...?) or was the subject of a media frenzy.
***Historic person considered fundamental to the understanding of college football (e.g. Bear Bryant, Walter Camp)
****HIGH
***Otherwise
****MID
**A current coach of a BCS/Top25 team (e.g. Mack Brown).
***HIGH
**A player or other coach that is current (college or NFL) but not an award winner (at either level)/Top25 (e.g. Dan Hawkins, Mark Mangino).
***LOW
**An article on any other specific player, coach or person
***LOW
**An article on any DI-A player or coach
***LOW
*Facilities and Traditions
**An article on a football stadium or other facility.
***LOW
**An article on a specific rivaly or rivalry trophy or a specific historic game.
***Well-known (e.g. Red River Rivalry, Iron Bowl).
****MID
***Otherwise (e.g. Shula Bowl, Border War).
****LOW
**An article on a very well known team tradition, mascot, saying, hand-signal, etc. (e.g. Aggie Bonfire, Sooner Schooner, Hook 'em Horns)
***MID
**Any other team tradition, mascot, saying, hand-signal, etc. that has been in existence at least 10 years but is not generally well known.
***LOW
**An article on a major bowl game (e.g. Rose Bowl, Cotton Bowl).
***HIGH
**An article on a non-major bowl game (e.g. Meineke Car Care Bowl).
***MID
**An article on a college football award.
***Heisman Trophy
****TOP
***Other awards (e.g. Maxwell Award).
****HIGH
***DI-AA awards (e.g. Walter Payton Award).
****LOW
**An article on any DI-AA facility or tradition.
***LOW
*Conferences
**A major conference (e.g. ACC, Big Ten).
***HIGH
**A mid-major conference (e.g. MAC, C-USA).
***MID
**A defunct conference (e.g. Big 8).
***LOW
**A DI-AA conference.
***LOW
--NMajdan•talk 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, some are tagged. Don't know which off the top of my head, but I added those fields after coming across them. I'll remove them as I see them.--NMajdan•talk 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do believe it is the latter: It could be written: Articles on the current coach of a current BCS (ranking) team. Articles on the current coach of a current Top 25 ranked (AP or Coaches, not Harris) Team." --MECU≈talk 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification determinations 

message: In the above scheme, I find this phrase to be ambiguous: "Articles on the current coach of a BCS/Top 25 team".   In context it looks like it could be saying an all-time Top 25 team, but it could be referring to the current Top 25.   I really want to see people like Chris Petersen get their due (because I think the stories of programs like that are interesting), so I'm hopeful it's the latter interpretation.  Regardless, it should be clarified.   Cheers, PhilipR 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe it is the latter: It could be written: Articles on the current coach of a current BCS (ranking) team. Articles on the current coach of a current Top 25 ranked (AP or Coaches, not Harris) Team." --MECU≈talk 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 25 ambiguous 

message: Why's it takin' so long to get any assessments done? Come on people. I think I'm the only one who's reiewed or commented the assessment page  this MONTH! Let's get some work done people!!! --Crash Underride 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no requirement to have someone else rate an article. While you may be biased since you heavily edited the article, you could make an attempt a rating, especially if you are familiar with the rating. It is not specific to WP:CFB and standardized across all projects. Lastly, most CFB editors (at least I) make assessments without the need to come to this page. With the low volume of work to be done here (at the page, there is tons to be done in rating), the page is probably not heavily watched. MECU≈talk 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'd be too tempted to rate it just above start or something. lol I think it's better if I don't rate my own, especally for WVU football players lol. --Crash Underride 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up?! 

message: Could we add a template class for college football for items such as Template:2009 Big East football standings, Template:NCAAFootballYearlyGameHeader, or other such items. I think it would be helpful if there were something like that so that all templates related to college football could be more easily grouped and eventually standardized, rated, and updated. Any thoughts? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a terrific idea. I have worked on several of the templates, and a grouping like you mention would certainly be welcome. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: We have a Template class now. Setting class=Template will place the page in :Category:Template-Class college football articles. There's a bit of a backlog of templates that need to be updated at :Category:College football template pages. I've knocked the list down a bit, but there are still over 600 articles to get set as Template-Class. We also have Category-Class with a corresponding backlog of over 100 articles at :Category:College football category pages. In addition, there is now Future-Class for articles referring to events that haven't happened yet (like next season), Current-Class for events that are in progress, Needed-Class for needed articles that haven't been created yet or only exist as a redirect, like 2010 Fiesta Bowl. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classes 

message: Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Streamlining_reassments. Thanks. DeFaultRyan 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamlining reassessments 

message: I'm proposing a change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Change Proposal to Assessment.  Please visit that page for discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change

message: Has anyone looked at articles importance rank recently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Top-importance_college_football_articles
...I think that we might have one or two more important articles to get to than say, the 1901 Michigan Wolverines.
199.190.61.128 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In hopes of getting things closer to how the table dictates so we can then discuss things further I've added and changed many importance ratings. A national championship season gets a "top" rating, and the 1901 Michigan squad was the first of those "point-a-minute" national championship teams. Cake (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: Can someone add links or footnotes on the importance section to explain the terms "FBS AQ" and "FBS non-AQ"?  I added the FCS one, but the other distinctions are not obvious to folks outside of the project. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  AQ and non-AQ in Importance section?