Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jul2006

message: I don't know (not that I have looked at too terribly many) if any other WikiProjects have a welcome message ... but I wonder if it would be worthwhile ... I thought I would put something together:
Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football!  We are glad you decided to sign up and we hope you enjoy reading and editing college football articles.
If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.
P.S.  If you haven't done so already, please consider adding  to your user page.  It lets other users who visit your page know about your involvement with the project.
Any thoughts? BigDT 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their message is much better ... try this on for size (blatantly stealing their's)
 
Hi, and welcome to the College football Wikiproject!  We are a group of editors who love college football and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
* Starting some new articles?  Please add  to the talk page and list your new article in the new articles section.
*Looking for somewhere to help?  Please see our article to do list or project to do list
If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.
Thoughts? BigDT 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed welcome to the project message 

message: Could someone find a football image to use that doesn't have NFL on it? Mecu 16:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like this:
 This college football-related article is a stub.  You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
I was looking through my football photos ... I can take a picture of a plain football at some point ... but really, it might be better for us to just use something totally different to distinguish ourselves from WP:NFL.  This guy isn't spectacular - I'm looking through my photos to see if I have anything better that isn't obviously a Virginia Tech player.  Any thoughts? BigDT 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that, but finding the ONE college fooball unique item that is non-team specific may be difficult. Except the national championship crystal football? Though that's D1-A specific. I just thought using an image with NFL on the ball was lazy. Having NCAA on it would be better, were anyone actually to look that close. Mecu 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's this one, from the same site as the NFL Football image: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/214308 .--NMajdan•talk 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with the football player, I think a football may be a little to ordinary. Bornagain4 13:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. Let us know and post here when you get it on WP. --Mecu 16:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Football Image

message: I think we should have a template for college athletic entries.  It could have college, nickname, mascot, school colors, fight song, and athletic conference(s). -PhattyFatt 02:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template?

message: Q: do we want a separate template/category for individual team articles (eg Auburn Tigers football)?
Category I think a category for each team would be fine. A template might be overkill for every team (especially smaller/less popular ones). Though do we need this at all since everything in the category would be listed on a "(School) football" page anyways? Mecu 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely believe there should be a category.  As for a template, it might not be a bad idea to have something by conference.  For example, right now, most/all conferences have something like .  What might be nice would be to have separate ones for , , and .  If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Atlantic Coast Conference, it's too inconsistent where it is used.  Having separate templates for the school, athletics, football, and roundball pages might be overkill, but it would be very nice from an ease of navigation standpoint. BigDT 17:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What I think we should do is create subcategories for College football stubs, such as stubs for coaches, players, and team pages by conference. Bornagain4 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the relevant discussion at WP:WSS/P ... there was opposition to adding anything more than just .  Once we add that, we can re-present if there is a need.  Personally, I'd like to see .  Plenty of players either never go to the pros or, if they do, their notability is strictly from college.  Consider Eric Crouch or Corey Moore.  It would be more useful to tag them as  as neither was in the pros long at all. BigDT 21:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate template/category for individual team articles

message: I tried to create a stub template for college football players, and when I added the stub to the page Marlin Jackson, it added the page to :Category:College football stubs. I believe there was something in the markup that I copied that directed the article to that category, but I don't know. Can someone please explain this to me!Bornagain4 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Stubs 

message: I've started adding a roster to 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team.  I'd appreciate any comments on the format (which was stolen from the NFL folk). TheMile 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. I don't think "True" needs to be used though, just the class unless they're RS. And I don't think you should link every player. There certainly shouldn't be an article on every player unless they are noteworthy. Perhaps we should have this in a table so that season-end we could easilly add stats of players in? --Mecu 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about not linking every player; I just did it for consistency's sake.  I think I'll reorder players by depth and only link the guys in the two-deep.  TheMile 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like it.  Along with Mecu though, I don't think you need to link even that deep.  I'm not sure that the information on even most starters for many major football teams would deserve a page separate from the team page.  For instance, if they had one great play in a season it would be good to have a note of it, but would not deserve a separate page. Z4ns4tsu 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the format some more, removing all the links with the intention of linking significant players from an eventual depth chart.  I've also added a small icon to designate redshirts.  I like the effect, but suspect it might not be appropriate.  Thoughts? -TheMile 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of copying this one as well for the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team article. I shrunk the font size down to 90% as a personal preference. I like it the way it is. I have it ordered by number under position and only have wikilinks for existing articles.--NMajdan•talk 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I kinda prefer the one we've created on the 2006 OU page and Michigan page.--NMajdan•talk 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer the layout on the 2006 Sooners page.  While the  template looks ok for international football (soccer) with about 20 people on them, I don't think it really would work for 85-man squads of college football. We'd be wasting a lot of space that the three-column template makes a better use of. Z4ns4tsu 14:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roster

message: Ok,  has been created. We need to populate it so its creation will be justified. I'm going through the other lists right now and recategorizing. Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdan•talk 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When we apply this stub, should we remove  or just leave it and have both? --Mecu 12:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it. The coach stub will place it in a sub-category of collegefootball. There is no reason to keep both as it is the more specific one.--NMajdan•talk 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coach stub 

message: There is some discussion of the "article importance" above in regards to team pages.  (I think general team pages can be "high", but pages for specific years should never be "high" unless the team won the NC.)  Anyways, I just added a few coaches and players that are in the College Football Hall of Fame, but are not common names: e.g. Zora G. Clevenger and Charlie Bachman.  According to the criteria here, hall of famers are of "high" importance.  Yet, another article I just added, Pappy Waldorf, who is even more well-known than the other two, was rated as "low" originally and then raised to "medium".  Frankly, I think any Hall of Famer is as notable as the fifth down game, so the rating criteria are correct as written.  But they are apparently not being applied as written.  So, should the criteria for high be changed to something like "recent hall of famers" or "notable hall of famers" to account for this?  (And who decides who is notable?) Kgwo1972 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any coach that is current at a 'major' school should be High. Any player that wins a final 'major' (D1A) award should be High. Items like Vince Young and Mack Brown could even be Top for short periods, but how much do we want to constantly re-rate and argue over ratings? A rating should exist and be able to exist for a year. No fresman should have a page (because it would be about their HS career and in-progress stats) except for very rare circumstances of which I could only think that maybe a player that is in the race for the Heisman would qualify (or they have impressive lineage, maybe, probably not). Players like Joel Klatt are important to the history of Colorado, being a 3-year starter at QB for the school is noteable and fills the history for the complete story. I've seen some templates that list quarterbacks like coaches, so it could be important in that matter as well. Anyone want to take a stab at trying to clearly define the criteria of timeliness and popularity, perhaps in a table? --Mecu 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think freshmen should absolutely be able to have a page under the right conditions.  For example, I created Colt McCoy about the presumed replacement for VY at UT. I think a starting freshman QB at any major football program would also merit an article. Perhaps other skilled positions as well. Johntex\talk 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any current college player should have a page unless they were at least a first team NCAA All-American or won an NCAA trophy for being the best at their position in the nation. If we lower our standards past that we could potentially be adding tens of thousands of player bios, all of which will be stubs that nobody will ever be able to expand upon.  If they make it to the NFL, great, make a page for them...but for college players there are just too many, most of which will never go on to the NFL and hence don't merit a page being made for them. I've used this same reasoning over at AFD for men's basketball and the consensus was to DELETE the article, and that was an article on a starter for a 1-A school. VegaDark 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it a lowering of standards to have more articles.  It is a raising of our standards in terms of completeness.  There is more than enough citable information to write a non-stub article on a starting QB for a major team.  I also don't think we can be a good resource for college football unless important current players are getting coverage.  Johntex\talk 02:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To expand on that, I don't think making it to the NFL is a deciding factor on whether a player is notable as a college player.  Dusty Mangum is notable to the game of college football even though did not make the pros.  The same is true of Major Applewhite. If we wait for them to make it in the NFL, we may as well give up on player articles and leave them to the NFL project. Johntex\talk 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a line needs to be drawn ... but maybe willingness to write the article would be a good line.  If someone goes and creates stubs for 85 scholarship players at Virginia Tech and never does anything with them, that's bad.  On the other hand, a well-written article on Jesse Allen, our starting fullback, wouldn't be a bad thing.  I would apply your standard for stubs - there's no sense in making a stub unless they are an all-something or at least a well-known player (Marcus Vick, for example).  As for basketball, I think that's a little different because there are fewer players.  If you are a starter from a major basketball team, you are probably worthy of an article.  That doesn't mean Morgan State, but anyone who starts in the ACC or BE, for example, could probably have an article ... but that's another wikiproject. BigDT 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think making it to the NFL (or AFL, NFL Europe, etc.) should be the standard for 99% of player articles myself.  Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on people based on the probability of their future notability.  How many starting college QB's today will be considered notable (i.e., worthy of an article) in 10 years?  Probably about 15%.  Simply playing a college sport doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia, even if you are a starter. Certainly there are a few exceptions, but we can deal with those as they come along.  I don't think this project's goal should be to create a bunch of articles on players we will have to delete in 4 years because they never made it to the NFL and are not notable.  VegaDark 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are players who never make it to the NFL who are unquestionably notable.  Corey Moore was all-everything at Tech on our 1999 team, but was too small to be in the NFL ... I don't think he was even drafted.  Marcus Vick and Bryan Randall may not survive any length of time in the NFL, but they are both obviously notable for their time at Tech (albeit for different reasons).  Eric Crouch won the Heisman and retired before what would have been his rookie season.  He is obviously notable.  Chris Rix, if he saw any NFL time at all, wasn't there long - he was a sideline reporter for Fox at the Cotton Bowl this year.  There are plenty of college players who don't make it to the pros or who have very abbreviated careers, but are notable for their college time.  BigDT 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree- That was factored in to the 1% margin for exceptions.  If you think about the sheer number of people that play college football, 1% is probably about accurate. VegaDark 03:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the distinction may be about whether it should be a goal to create articles on these types of players vs whether it is acceptable to do so.   I am not proposing that we go out and attempt to comprehensively write articles on freshman starters as a project goal.  I am only saying that if someone wants to write a good article on a freshman starter, that this project should support them, and that we should not consider them ripe for deletion. Johntex\talk 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I do think we have some common ground on the subject of stubs.  The point of a stub is that it is OK if it is likely to be expanded.  Making a stub for every player on a roster would not be a good idea because they are likely to remain stubs.  Any well written, sourced and verifiable article should be encouraged.  Their notability does not necessarily end with their college career.  Alumni and scholars may consider those starters interesting to read about for all eternity.  At worst, if they are useful for a few years and then no one cares anymore, we can AfD them at a later date. Johntex\talk 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The NFL is irrelevant to our project, except if they are noteable within the NFL, then their college section should have information and their status is higher. Otherwise, having NFL stats or never playing is irrelevant. There's no such thing as "no longer ours". Everyone in the pros has a college history (well, the probability is there). This is about college football. Player articles should be written in the past, not the present or future. Team articles and season articles are fine for the present, because there's little chance to to be useless. A Freshman QB could end up a dud and the article then not important. It could certainly wait until the end of the season to be written. Do we absolutely need to cover what the current content is up to the minute? --Mecu 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against putting any wait limit on starting articles.  If a starting freshman is getting press in his first year, people will be wanting to read about him.  We have an opportunity to serve those people as a neutral, well written source.  So what if he vanishes after one year?  We can always AfD articles.  I do agree that it should not be a goal of our project to systematically create such articles, and that they should not be ranked high in importance. Johntex\talk 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of article importance rating

message: I am finding the discussion above a little difficult to follow.  I suggest a new way of looking at things.  Instead of trying to come up with text to describe each level, let's figure it out by examples. Let's list some categories of pages, then we can each place a recommendation as to where you think that item should rank.
Here is how I think this should work:
*If you agree with my assesement of that category of article - just add your name right after mine.
*If you disagree (Eg. I said "High" and you think it is "Mid"), simply add a new line after mine with your proposed ranking and your name.  The next person then agrees with one of us and adds their name to the appropriate line, or they add a third view
Here we go:
*Pages generically related to understanding the game of college football.  These pages will probably never change unless the system dramatically changes. They will be top priority to college football for the forseeable future. (Ex: college football, touchdown, fumble, punt, bowl game, Bowl Championship Series)
::Top - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
*Pages related in a generic way to the current season (Ex: 2007 Fiesta Bowl, 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season)
::High - Johntex, Kgwo1972
::High or top (2006 NCAA Division I-A football season = top, most anything else = high) BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan
*The main football article (if it exists) of the top 25 football programs of all time (by winning percentage - Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas...)
::High - Johntex, I would change "of all time" to "in recent years" BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan (I would change "in recent years" to "modern era-post WWII")
::Mid - Kgwo1972
*The main football article (if it exists) of all other Division I programs
::Mid - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan
::Low - Kgwo1972
*An article on any specific team season (Ex 2004 USC Trojans, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team if they won or shared (AP, Coaches or BCS only) a national title since 1995.
::High - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, (Prior to 1995 should be Mid) Mecu, Z4ns4tsu
::Mid - Kgwo1972, NMajdan
*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 - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
*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)
::Low - Johntex, BigDT, Z4ns4tsu
::Mid or Low - (Depends on how likely the team is to do well, Texas-Mid, Colorado-Low) Bornagain4, ('do well' Nationally? In their conference? A winning season?) Mecu, (Mid if likely to do well nationally) Kgwo1972, NMajdan
*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.
::Mid - Johntex
::High for any current Heisman finalist, current coach of the year, or historic person considered fundamental to an understanding of college football (e.g., Bear Bryant), otherwise Mid - BigDT, Bornagain4, (Household names could apply to this as well) Mecu, Kgwo1972 (except as noted below for HOFers), NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
::High for all HOFers - Kgwo1972 (a wiser and larger group than us has already decided the HOFers are extremely important to college football)
*An article on any other specific player, coach or person
::Low - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, (I divided this category further, see below) Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
*An article on a football stadium or other facility
::Low - Johntex, BigDT, Mecu, Kgwo1972, Z4ns4tsu
::Mid or Low depending on how well known it is - Bornagain4, NMajdan
*An article on a specific rivaly or rivalry trophy or a specific historic game
::Low unless incredibly well known, then Mid - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, (What classifies as 'incredibly well known'? I guess it would be up to the rater) Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
*An article on a bowl game played for at least 10 years, and/or in current existence (Ex. Rose Bowl Game, Cotton Bowl)
::Mid - Johntex, BigDT, NMajdan
::Mid or High depending on how well known or how significant - Bornagain4, Kgwo1972, Z4ns4tsu
::High - Mecu
*An article on a very well known team tradition, mascot, saying, hand-signal, etc. (Eg Bonfire, Sooner Schooner, Hook 'em Horns)
::High - Johntex
::Mid - BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
::Low - Kgwo1972
*Any other team tradition, mascot, saying, hand-signal, etc. that has been in existence at least 10 years but is not generally well known.
::Mid - Johntex
::Low - BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
*Any tradition less than 10 years old
::Low - Johntex, BigDT, Bornagain4, Mecu, Kgwo1972, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
*A current coach of a BCS/Top25 team (eg Mack Brown).
::High - Mecu, Bornagain4, Kgwo1972 (BCS only; all others Mid), NMajdan
*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 - Kgwo1972, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu
::Mid - Mecu, Bornagain4
*All other historical players and coaches covered for reference (Joel Klatt).
::Low - Mecu, Bornagain4, Kgwo1972, NMajdan
*A major conference (ACC, Big Ten).
::Top - Bornagain4, NMajdan
::High - Mecu, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
*A mid-major conference (MAC, C-USA).
::High - Bornagain4, NMajdan
::Mid - Mecu, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
*A defunct conference (Big 8).
::Mid - Bornagain4
::Low - , NMajdan, Mecu, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
*A DI-AA conference.
::Mid - Bornagain4
::Low - (All non DI-A items should be Low, except national champion and related items) Mecu, NMajdan, Z4ns4tsu, Lbbzman
*Add a new category if I left anything out.
:::*I want to emphasize that nothing here means we have to create an article on every team's season, or player or coach or bowl game.  This only means that if the article does exist and is well written enough to keep, that we rate it according to the system we end up agreeing to. Johntex\talk 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hopefully a few of these we will all pretty much agree on right away, the others we can take into seperate sections to discuss once a few people have had a chance to add their votes to the list. Johntex\talk 05:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Should we set a deadline of like Friday, July 14 for the initial votes to be talled before we bless this and then implement the system? Of course we can always revise and change it. I'd also like to say that these should be guidelines. A reviewer may change an item that should be Mid to High or Low if they can justify it. --Mecu 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That sounds good to me.  On Friday, we can tabulate the votes and if need to discuss one or two that got no consensus then we can do that.  I also agree they should be guidelines, with a reviewer needing to explain/justify if they deviate from the guideline. Johntex\talk 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to lobby against using Top for the "major conference (ACC, Big Ten)" items. I believe Top should be items that would require daily review from several members and/or constant edits. The conference articles will be fairly static and (should) contain more information than just about football, which shouldn't dominate the article either. Thus, it wouldn't really require the daily attention. I further don't think it should be required for someone new to college football learning to read about conferences in their first strides. Knowing about the conference system, sure, but reading about each (major) conference? As a side note, I think we can begin discussing items where there is no clear consenses (should we define consenses as 75% or more?). --Mecu 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think frequency of updating is related to importance.  College football is our most important article and once we get it to the point where we are happy with it, it could go for days without anyone editting it, assuming no vandalism.  I think the "Importance" scale is about "how important is it to the casual reader looking to learn about this sport".  If you want to view that in the negative, it would be "how bad do we look if this particular article is poorly written".  The major conferences are very important to the game and I would expect a reader to hit one of them fairly early in reading about college football.  Therefore, I think they are pretty important.  I agree with you that any articles with 75% consensus or more we can assume are settled. Johntex\talk 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Johntex has a very good point. I completely agree with his definition of the importance scale. Bornagain4 22:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the items that were consensis and tranfereed them to the Assessment page (but left them here also for reference). See Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment#Importance_scale. For the remaining items, there wasn't enough consensis (75%, some are close at 66%), so folks either need to change their vote, discussion needs to occur, or more people need to vote. In the meanwhile, it is safe to rate articles at the lowest level that is under consideration for that items. For example, if it's between Mid/High, then you can rate it Mid if you want, and if it turns out High, then we can go change it, or just not rate it and wait, or rate it what is currently in the lead. I've bolded the items left. --MECU≈talk 16:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've compiled the results of this list here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Classification determinations.--NMajdan•talk 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, in general. Let's see if I can clarify a bit, though.  The rating of articles should follow the guidlines set out by the WikiProject:College football general consensus.  When an article does not fall under a category discussed in those guidlines, the original assessment shall stand unless a convincing reason is given for a change to that assessment.  These reasons should be included in the edit summary if short and on the article's discussion page if longer (with a reference to look at the discussion page in the edit summary).  Sound good? z4ns4tsu\talk 15:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Perhaps adding something that if the change fits the guidelines, then discussion doesn't need to occur since it still fits the guidelines. MECU≈talk 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed some errors, made more clear. I'm not sure what you mean with your suggestion, Mecu, so can you show me? z4ns4tsu\talk 17:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Have these determinations been translated on the Assessment page?--NMajdan•talk 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with what you said. 4-1, so majority rules. If Mack Brown or Pete Carroll went to Troy, eventually they would need to be downgraded. I say eventually because I'm sure it would be a big story for awhile if that happened, so leaving them at the higher importance level may be justified for a time period. Now, if a coach gets a promotion (for example, if Steve Kragthorpe goes from Tulsa to Texas A&M) then they deserve to be immediately raised in importance. But, we really need to update our tables so when they click quality scale or importance scale on the banner, they are taken to the table with the correct information on how to rate with college football-related exampled. As far as the tables at the peer review section, I don't know if that is needed. We have the bot-generated log that lists everything. There is an empty Comments field in that table. If we can update that with the peer review requests, I think that would be best. My concern, though, is if we add something to Comments, will it get deleted next time the bot runs? I may add some text to an article I re-rated and see what happens.--NMajdan•talk 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I'm not sure how the bot will handle it, so we'll see with your test. I agree with your comments as well. Just that it doesn't really matter if we downgrade the article if it's already a B-level or higher article. The point is to try and establish what articles should be moved from stub>start>B (and higher) before working on others. Like, a Top level article that's a sub B level should be immediate for us. A Top level B article could probably wait while we move the High levels up to B class. But it's all subjective in what folks want to work on too. I'm not too hungup on the "importance" or priority levels anymore. I think the class ratings are more useful. I'd almost be willing to say get rid of the importance levels and just use the class levels to see where what articles need work on (aside from stub levels). But whichever. I like the idea of linking the ratings, I'll look into it unless someone beats me to it. MECU≈talk 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, the importance ratings are already in the template, so I say leave them. And they're used in the population of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's tables and logs. But I do understand what you're saying. As far as the linking, they are already linked in the banner. I just want to make sure that the links they go to are accurate based on our previous discussions. Right not, those tables have examples such as Medal of Honor, agriculture, arithmetic, Big Bertha (drum), etc. We need them to reflect CFB-related articles.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality scale is just a template, so we can't modify it. If you want to subst: it and then modify the examples, I don't think that'd be a problem, but since we don't have any (do we?) FA articles or A-class (I wouldn't put the 2005 rankings since it's not an article) it may not be worth it. Perhaps just add a section below to list some CFB examples? MECU≈talk 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it is? Hmm. Did not know that. Also, we disagree about the rankings page. While it is not an article, it is still an information-providing page on Wikipedia. Whether it be an article, list, or image, they should be rated. Now this page isn't an article and thus would not be ranked. But since it is not an article, then there's no reason to include it as an example for an FA article. I'll take a look at some of this stuff tomorrow.--NMajdan•talk 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was taking "article" too literally. If it's in the article namespace, then it's an article. Tagging this page or anything under the project would then get the NA. I stand corrected. MECU≈talk 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been asking around about the Comment field on the worklist and I'm getting some answers. For some reason, my test page wasn't picked up by the bot but I don't know if the bot just missed it or if I did it wrong. The Comment feature is not documented but somebody said today they would work on some documentation on it as he implements it on another WikiProject. Go here for the discussion.--NMajdan•talk 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I finally got it finished. I'm going to create another section referring to this change. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Comments on worklist.--NMajdan•talk 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new way of looking at things

message: Since things seem to have stalled, I'd like to propose that the items that were accepted (and now on the assessment page) be generally applied. Other items that fit in some of the other areas should be rated probably as above. But, in all cases, the rating is up to the view of the assessor. If the view is much different than from the general ideas agreed upon above (ie, if I wanted to rate Dan Hawkins as "Top") then justification must be given. Disagreements should be discussed specifically on that individual article's talk page. In all cases, no one who has ties to the article should be rating (ie, I shouldn't rate a Colorado item) unless it is fairly clear or I don't seem to be going against the general consensus. If I do and someone else applies a different standard, their views should outweight mine, as long as there is some justification given. I know that's clear as mud, but does everyone generally agree? --MECU≈talk 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, in general. Let's see if I can clarify a bit, though.  The rating of articles should follow the guidlines set out by the WikiProject:College football general consensus.  When an article does not fall under a category discussed in those guidlines, the original assessment shall stand unless a convincing reason is given for a change to that assessment.  These reasons should be included in the edit summary if short and on the article's discussion page if longer (with a reference to look at the discussion page in the edit summary).  Sound good? z4ns4tsu\talk 15:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Perhaps adding something that if the change fits the guidelines, then discussion doesn't need to occur since it still fits the guidelines. MECU≈talk 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed some errors, made more clear. I'm not sure what you mean with your suggestion, Mecu, so can you show me? z4ns4tsu\talk 17:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Have these determinations been translated on the Assessment page?--NMajdan•talk 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with what you said. 4-1, so majority rules. If Mack Brown or Pete Carroll went to Troy, eventually they would need to be downgraded. I say eventually because I'm sure it would be a big story for awhile if that happened, so leaving them at the higher importance level may be justified for a time period. Now, if a coach gets a promotion (for example, if Steve Kragthorpe goes from Tulsa to Texas A&M) then they deserve to be immediately raised in importance. But, we really need to update our tables so when they click quality scale or importance scale on the banner, they are taken to the table with the correct information on how to rate with college football-related exampled. As far as the tables at the peer review section, I don't know if that is needed. We have the bot-generated log that lists everything. There is an empty Comments field in that table. If we can update that with the peer review requests, I think that would be best. My concern, though, is if we add something to Comments, will it get deleted next time the bot runs? I may add some text to an article I re-rated and see what happens.--NMajdan•talk 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I'm not sure how the bot will handle it, so we'll see with your test. I agree with your comments as well. Just that it doesn't really matter if we downgrade the article if it's already a B-level or higher article. The point is to try and establish what articles should be moved from stub>start>B (and higher) before working on others. Like, a Top level article that's a sub B level should be immediate for us. A Top level B article could probably wait while we move the High levels up to B class. But it's all subjective in what folks want to work on too. I'm not too hungup on the "importance" or priority levels anymore. I think the class ratings are more useful. I'd almost be willing to say get rid of the importance levels and just use the class levels to see where what articles need work on (aside from stub levels). But whichever. I like the idea of linking the ratings, I'll look into it unless someone beats me to it. MECU≈talk 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, the importance ratings are already in the template, so I say leave them. And they're used in the population of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's tables and logs. But I do understand what you're saying. As far as the linking, they are already linked in the banner. I just want to make sure that the links they go to are accurate based on our previous discussions. Right not, those tables have examples such as Medal of Honor, agriculture, arithmetic, Big Bertha (drum), etc. We need them to reflect CFB-related articles.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality scale is just a template, so we can't modify it. If you want to subst: it and then modify the examples, I don't think that'd be a problem, but since we don't have any (do we?) FA articles or A-class (I wouldn't put the 2005 rankings since it's not an article) it may not be worth it. Perhaps just add a section below to list some CFB examples? MECU≈talk 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it is? Hmm. Did not know that. Also, we disagree about the rankings page. While it is not an article, it is still an information-providing page on Wikipedia. Whether it be an article, list, or image, they should be rated. Now this page isn't an article and thus would not be ranked. But since it is not an article, then there's no reason to include it as an example for an FA article. I'll take a look at some of this stuff tomorrow.--NMajdan•talk 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was taking "article" too literally. If it's in the article namespace, then it's an article. Tagging this page or anything under the project would then get the NA. I stand corrected. MECU≈talk 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been asking around about the Comment field on the worklist and I'm getting some answers. For some reason, my test page wasn't picked up by the bot but I don't know if the bot just missed it or if I did it wrong. The Comment feature is not documented but somebody said today they would work on some documentation on it as he implements it on another WikiProject. Go here for the discussion.--NMajdan•talk 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I finally got it finished. I'm going to create another section referring to this change. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Comments on worklist.--NMajdan•talk 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Started?

message: I'd like to suggest that each type of article contain a standard format of information that should be included to be considered a complete article, to be used during the peer review process. Missing imformation would mean the article could not qualify for a FA (or GA?) status. --Mecu 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My major concern is over use of the phrase "information that should be included at a minimum".  This is far more than just the "minimum".  If these are the "shoot for the moon" requirements, then they should be labeled as such.  My secondary concern is that this seems to place an emphasis on "filling in the blanks" of statistics and the like.  Johntex\talk 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to an extent. Having that many tables and records is a tedious task that will require a great deal of time, time I would like to see spent one writing better parenthetical articles.--NMajdan•talk 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but it should be desired for full information though? I agree that and article on (for example) Michigan that has everything except a detailed year-by-year schedule result would probably be a GA article, but can't be considered complete without it. I agree it is also slightly stats heavy, but I could not and can not think of a way to list criteria about how to list a requirement that says how to write a parenthetical items. By no means was this presented to be the de-facto list, please add, change modify it. My ideal is that someone going through the rankings could have this beside them while they evaluate an article. They would look at the article and "check off" the items as they see them. So, if someone looks at a player article, they see exactally what it needs to have instead of every reviewer looking at the same article and (probably) coming up with different results on the completeness and suggestions of what needs to be done. --Mecu 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with it if it is described appropriately, but I don't want reviewers to check their brains at the door.  How about something like "In addition to looking for well written prose, accuracy, and adherence to Wikipedia policies and project-wide style guides, the reviewer is asked also consider as a factor in their evaluation whether the article appropriately includes the article the following suggested information:..." Johntex\talk 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the schedule table should be listed there, not referenced out. Also, the stats should be specificed, not just a list of reccommended items. Other than that it's fine. And you know you're allowed more than one userspace item so everything doesn't have to go on your Test userspace page? --MECU≈talk 15:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. But I'll forget about them and they'll get lost. Maybe I should use Test as more of a TOC for my other pages. I'll work on actually adding empty tables to the template for the schedule.--NMajdan•talk 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out . It'll show you all your userspace items. --MECU≈talk 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few other comments. I'm not sure <Mascot> is the right term, since for teams like Stanford, Cardinal isn't the mascot per se. Perhaps <Nicknames>? Also, maybe we should standardize the roster display with a template somehow? I don't think a template for each school per  is useful, but a template that allows you to fillin the names for each school on that page. So there'd be only 1 template for all rosters. --MECU≈talk 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. Very useful. I switched Mascot to Nickname, that makes sense. Regarding the Roster. Ok, it probably shouldn't be a template, but thats how I saw it first and I went with it. That probably should just be moved to the main article text. Opinions? As for an actual template. I'm against that idea because it it too complicated. Its easier to take an existing roster and just edit out the information. Can you image a template with enough attributes for approx 80 players, their number, position, and class? That is way too much data. Also, I added some stats to the page. I may have went a little overboard but better to start with too much and trim than with too little. I've thought about placing the team statistics into two columns. Any suggestions?--NMajdan•talk 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the roster template, I don't see a problem with it. The NFL does all of its rosters this way (see :Category:National Football League roster templates).--NMajdan•talk 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the NFL is doing it that way.... actually, I think you're right -- it would be overtly complex. We should generate a category for that as well then. The two-columns for stats -- the opponents is just a summary, right? Also, you need a kicker/punter stats box.  --MECU≈talk 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I created a 2 column layout for the team stats and added the punter/kicker table. Don't know how I looked over the latter. I also moved the page to a subpage of the project and provided a link to it in the Structure section. The link is above a few posts.--NMajdan•talk 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good. What about FG kicker stats? Perhaps move this discussion to that talk page? And summary of stats? Add it to the Project Navbox? --MECU≈talk 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are already fields for Field Goals & Attempts and PATs and Attempts in the Team Stats part. Really think its worth creating a separate table just for those? I think knowing how many were attempted and how many were made will suffice. Besides, very few teams have more than one field goal kicker. If you want a summary of stats, than that can go after the Statistics header and before the Team header. I'll add something there.--NMajdan•talk 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard Formats

message: *You're wanting the full historical record of every year's win/loss record? That is quite the daunting task.--NMajdan•talk 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My major concern is over use of the phrase "information that should be included at a minimum".  This is far more than just the "minimum".  If these are the "shoot for the moon" requirements, then they should be labeled as such.  My secondary concern is that this seems to place an emphasis on "filling in the blanks" of statistics and the like.  Johntex\talk 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to an extent. Having that many tables and records is a tedious task that will require a great deal of time, time I would like to see spent one writing better parenthetical articles.--NMajdan•talk 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but it should be desired for full information though? I agree that and article on (for example) Michigan that has everything except a detailed year-by-year schedule result would probably be a GA article, but can't be considered complete without it. I agree it is also slightly stats heavy, but I could not and can not think of a way to list criteria about how to list a requirement that says how to write a parenthetical items. By no means was this presented to be the de-facto list, please add, change modify it. My ideal is that someone going through the rankings could have this beside them while they evaluate an article. They would look at the article and "check off" the items as they see them. So, if someone looks at a player article, they see exactally what it needs to have instead of every reviewer looking at the same article and (probably) coming up with different results on the completeness and suggestions of what needs to be done. --Mecu 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with it if it is described appropriately, but I don't want reviewers to check their brains at the door.  How about something like "In addition to looking for well written prose, accuracy, and adherence to Wikipedia policies and project-wide style guides, the reviewer is asked also consider as a factor in their evaluation whether the article appropriately includes the article the following suggested information:..." Johntex\talk 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the schedule table should be listed there, not referenced out. Also, the stats should be specificed, not just a list of reccommended items. Other than that it's fine. And you know you're allowed more than one userspace item so everything doesn't have to go on your Test userspace page? --MECU≈talk 15:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. But I'll forget about them and they'll get lost. Maybe I should use Test as more of a TOC for my other pages. I'll work on actually adding empty tables to the template for the schedule.--NMajdan•talk 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Check out . It'll show you all your userspace items. --MECU≈talk 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few other comments. I'm not sure <Mascot> is the right term, since for teams like Stanford, Cardinal isn't the mascot per se. Perhaps <Nicknames>? Also, maybe we should standardize the roster display with a template somehow? I don't think a template for each school per  is useful, but a template that allows you to fillin the names for each school on that page. So there'd be only 1 template for all rosters. --MECU≈talk 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. Very useful. I switched Mascot to Nickname, that makes sense. Regarding the Roster. Ok, it probably shouldn't be a template, but thats how I saw it first and I went with it. That probably should just be moved to the main article text. Opinions? As for an actual template. I'm against that idea because it it too complicated. Its easier to take an existing roster and just edit out the information. Can you image a template with enough attributes for approx 80 players, their number, position, and class? That is way too much data. Also, I added some stats to the page. I may have went a little overboard but better to start with too much and trim than with too little. I've thought about placing the team statistics into two columns. Any suggestions?--NMajdan•talk 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the roster template, I don't see a problem with it. The NFL does all of its rosters this way (see :Category:National Football League roster templates).--NMajdan•talk 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the NFL is doing it that way.... actually, I think you're right -- it would be overtly complex. We should generate a category for that as well then. The two-columns for stats -- the opponents is just a summary, right? Also, you need a kicker/punter stats box.  --MECU≈talk 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I created a 2 column layout for the team stats and added the punter/kicker table. Don't know how I looked over the latter. I also moved the page to a subpage of the project and provided a link to it in the Structure section. The link is above a few posts.--NMajdan•talk 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good. What about FG kicker stats? Perhaps move this discussion to that talk page? And summary of stats? Add it to the Project Navbox? --MECU≈talk 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are already fields for Field Goals & Attempts and PATs and Attempts in the Team Stats part. Really think its worth creating a separate table just for those? I think knowing how many were attempted and how many were made will suffice. Besides, very few teams have more than one field goal kicker. If you want a summary of stats, than that can go after the Statistics header and before the Team header. I'll add something there.--NMajdan•talk 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Obviously, the CFB Data Warehouse as well as athletic dept websites, media guides (very, very useful for individual school info) are the Bibles for non-copyrightable information.  Actually, let me clarify: how they arrange the data on their page is copyrighted (but you would have to program a lot into Wikipedia to make it look alike), however the data (schools, score, location) is not copyrightable.  This is analygous to the landmark copyright cases about copyrights and phonebooks (you can short-hand reference it as Feist).  Anyhoo...good to know my degree was worth something. But back to media guides for a second: most are intended to disseminate PR info so, at worst, you can probably fair-use most of the content as a press kit. --Bobak 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this general info or are you referring to any pages in particular? Although it is good to know.--NMajdan•talk 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General info.  At first I was going to make a direct response to a concern about how difficult it can be to gather a full w/l record (that you can just grab it from a site like CFB Data Warehouse), but then I realized I could easily expand the comment and give everyone a head's up going into their articles.  On the project page it says to be careful not to copy --but that might confuse people who would hestitate to grab w/l records or roster data off of different online sources.  I want people to be able to work without too much concern on copyright, and I know Wikipedians sometimes are extra-extra nervous about that stuff. --Bobak 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To make sure, before I go off and do stuff that isn't useful, I could take a media guide, crop an image from it, and upload it and it'd be okay? Further, how much do you have to change the format before it's different? if I reverse two columns? Omit a column? Change colors, fonts, etc? --Mecu 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An image is a very different thing.  The legal case Bobak points to is saying that information is not copyrightable.  An image is not information, it is a creative work that is subject to copyright.  As to format, I am not sure there is a standard answer that would work in every single case.  My reading of Feist is that the formatting of the informaiton was not dealt with specifically.  I presume though, that Feist pretty much copied the exact format of Rural's data (all phone books pretty much follow the same format: alphabetical by last name, the first name, followed by address and phone number - what could you change around other than type face, etc.?)  If that is the case, then reversing columns may not be necesary at all.  However I seem to recall a different US court case that held that you can't just copy someone's top 100 list, like the NYT best-seller list, because intellectual creativity has gone into making the list.  Any comment on that Bobak? Johntex\talk 17:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like Bobak to please directly address Images from a Media Kit then. --Mecu 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Also, a quick note on fair use of press kit info: the concept of fair use includes the concept of how much material is used.  We can't just take an entire press kit and copy its prose over to Wikipedia.  Even smaller sections need to be appropritely cited to avoid issues of plagarism.  Again, when creative work has gone into writing something, that would not be a case of simply copying information, which is what the Feist case covers. - Johntex\talk 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia:Fair use explains our policy on fair use quite well.  It includes pointers to the relevant templates for tagging publicity photos. Johntex\talk 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'm testing the waters. :Image:Eddie_Crowder.JPG used only at Eddie Crowder. (if anyone can help on the image page with the fair use description, please do, I always seem to get yelled at no matter what I do there.) --Mecu 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Mecu's above link.  Making an image into a link requires a : in front of it.  Not a "tl".  I have no idea why they work differently, but they do. Johntex\talk 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I tweaked the fair use explanation a little bit. Johntex\talk 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allay general copyright concerns

message: I made a quick navigation template to use. It will be especially useful as we progress out of organization mode and into edit mode. I modeled it after  and . It is stored in my userspace as of now until people can look it over and suggest any comments. I will eventually create it here: .--NMajdan•talk 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have a bit of a patience problem. The template  has been created.--NMajdan•talk 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation template 

message: I nominated Rose Bowl Game for good article status. Bornagain4 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs more work.  I'll save the meat of my comments for the discussion in that talk page. --Bobak 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose Bowl Good Article 

message: It having been 7 days since Mecu proposed a portal, I have created one.  Please have at it! Johntex\talk 07:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: As of right now there are only 2 team bowl game history articles, and I think we should agree on a naming convention for them before more are made.  As of right now we have List of University of Oregon football bowl games and List of Oregon State University football bowl games, but I think it may be better if we used the nicknames instead of the official school name and also if we added history, i.e. List of Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history.  Or perhaps Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history and leave off the list at the beginning? Thoughts? VegaDark 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't feel those articles are entirely necessary, if I had to pick one of your suggestions, I would say the latter. I'd say leave off "list" to leave room for the optional narrative and use the school's nickname. Oregan State Beavers football bowl game history. Although that sounds long winded. Nevertheless, I'm sure some people will create these articles so having a naming convention established beforehand is wise.--NMajdan•talk 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree isn't not very needed. Such information should be contained on a Oregon State Beavers football page as a section on there. But, if I had to pick a naming convention, I'd pick Oregon State Beavers bowl game history (are there bowl games in other sports? Is the "football" really needed? If so, Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history). --Mecu 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A page on the bowl games of a team could get pretty long if one tried hard enough.  I think a page seperated from the football page could be justified.  Not sure if there are bowl games in other sports, but it might be helpful to include it in the name for the people that know little to nothing about football that happen to come accross that article. VegaDark 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As noted above, I don't think it is necessary to say "football bowl games."  If there is any possibility of confusion about whether "bowl game" refers to football, the article itself can make it clear.  Also, whether "list" is included in the title depends on whether it is a list or an article.  If a list, then it should be List of Oregon State Beavers bowl games.  If an article, then I'm OK with Oregon State Beavers bowl game history.  Kgwo1972 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now the two existing articles are pretty much lists.  However, I do think both could certainly be expanded upon to be articles.  So I have to agree that Oregon State Beavers bowl game history is probably the best name so far, I'll wait for a few more responses before I move the existing two though. VegaDark 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just link to CFDW (or whatever it is) and have a section on each article about bowl history? Rkevins82 20:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A separate article for bowl games .really. seems extraneous ... I'd suggest adding the table to the main athletics or football article ... BigDT 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Team bowl game history articles

message: I need some opinions for list layout here: . Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdan•talk 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need opinion 

message: I have an idea for a slightly different assessment scale for our WikiProject. I got the idea from WikiProject Indigenous people. Here she be.
Bornagain4 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this much different than what's listed on the Assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment#Quality_scale? --MECU≈talk 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, this scale only grades the quality of the article. The main discussion above is about how to rank articles in their importance. Both of these are used in combination to determine a priority of items to work on. In theory, Top-ranked importance should be worked on before High, Mid and Low (and so on). Further, items that are stubs within Top should be worked on to bring them up to B level, and then once all items are B levels, then work on gettings them to GA and FA levels. Of course, this is theory and we all have our preference of articles/schools/interests. So things won't always get worked on in that order and it's probably not going to happen to get everything to B level before working towards GA/FA. But the idea is there, and those searching for articles to work on may use this tool, but it also helps evaluate where we are as a project. If we get to the point that there are 5 stubs, we can see that we've really progressed at a project. --MECU≈talk 14:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Over on the MathBot page which is the bot that tallies up a project's ratings, it was suggested to change "importance" to "priority". Even if it doesn't happen, I think it's a good reflection on what that category means. While I and others argue over an article's importance to college football, which is important in assessing its priority, it's not what the scale is really about. --MECU≈talk 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New idea 

message: Sorry to ask but I presume this College Football Project only applies to Colleges in the USA and taking part in NCAA competition.  I know that in the UK we have a College league as well are we to be fitted in or ignored? Thanks, BCAFL 1:25pm GMT
:I created most of the BCAFL pages and I've already tagged them as part of the College Football project, albeit at Low importance.  Feel free to drop me a line if you have any BCAFL questions.  Masonpatriot 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK College

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:LSUTigersFootball}} 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:LonghornsFootball}} 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:LonghornsQuarterback}} 

message: Is it typical for articles about college football teams to list the current roster with the flags of the state from which the players hail? See, for example Notre Dame football. If this is a standard format, where is the appropriate place to discuss it? Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a complete waste of resources to have the state flags. The roster on 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team is closer to a "standard" that we have here. I don't think an article such as Notre Dame football should even have a roster listed on it. That belonds on the year pages. Highlight players should be the ones listed on the main article (such as Heisman winners, retired numbers, etc). --MECU≈talk 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn.  The flags on the Notre Dame page are for a reason.  They are the nation's only truly national team and that fact is abundantly clear with the diversity of the flags.  Furthermore, it is not as though the 15x25 pixel flag take up a lot of space.  On the otherhand, I have no problem with splitting the current and last years roster into their own article. -- KelleyCook 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the size on the screen, it's the resources Wikipedia uses to grab the image and send it over the internet. Folks below are quite correct, every team (except maybe Texas) is fairly national and have players from all over. I doubt there is much encyclopedic value with that. If someone wanted to know the national makeup of the team, they are a deep fan and would look on the official website for such information. --MECU≈talk 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They are the nation's only truly national team"" I am an ND alum and fan, but that is a huge POV and incorrect statement. In today's collegiate football environment, many many teams have players from across the country. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It just looks really cluttered with all the flags. They are unnecessary. Every college has athletes from many states.--NMajdan•talk 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree the flags are unnecessary and detract from the page. Johntex\talk 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current roster with flags 

message: I've stumbled accross some lists of items I think are useless. Such information could be contained on the school's football article, if important enough. List of Penn State Football Players for example, but also List of Penn State Football All-Americans and List of Nebraska Cornhuskers football coaches. And these are the only ones that I can find at the moment. The only argument I can see for these, is the prevent the football article from becoming too large (like the Colorado one is now). Do we want these? Should there be a standard format for each? Should these be listed with  under NA, or should these be classified? Should they allow current roster information? Who decided these are key players for 2006? --MECU≈talk 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think lists can be useful.  As you say, there is a risk of some football pages becoming bloated.  We should handle these case by case on the articles and lists in question. Johntex\talk 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player and Coaches Lists 

message: Should items like NCAA Football 07, NCAA Football series, NCAA Football 06, and NCAA Football series soundtracks (and so forth) be a part of the WP CFB? I'm mostly convinced they shouldn't be, as it's more a video game than about college football. They certainly shouldn't be rated Mid-importance. --MECU≈talk 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the games themselves do not have a lot to do with the reality of college football, they do have, typically, the same audience and a lot of accurate information about teams, rivalries, stadiums, conferences, etc.  If there is a WP:Video Games, I'd say let them manage the articles, but it would also be a good idea for us to have some input on them since people searcing WP for college football will likely see the articles on the games come up as well. Z4ns4tsu 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think items about college football (novels, movies, video games, paintings, whatever) do belong in the category.  I think most of them should be low priority. Johntex\talk 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games in WP:CFB 

message: I have created . Please read the instructions, specifically on the talk page. Let me know of any improvements, comments, suggestions, critisisms you have. Only Colorado and Colorado State are currently populated. I want to see if this is useful (I'd see it especially useful on items like the Poll pages) before I spend the time to fully populate the items. --MECU≈talk 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template: CFBlink 

message: I'd like to reccommend WP:POPUP to everyone out there. Someone just let me know about it, so I'm letting everyone else know about it. It's quite easy to install as well. --MECU≈talk 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already have it. Great tool.--NMajdan•talk 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:POPUP 

message: I hope those are finished. They all contain information that appears to have been just copy/pasted from another website. The 2003 USC Trojans football team article merely states "Won Orange Bowl." These either need to be updated and formatted as agreed upon or deleted.--NMajdan•talk 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on the 2004 USC Trojans football team article.--NMajdan•talk 02:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message on the user's talk page User talk:Troyboysc about this. Creating year pages that are stubs like that aren't useful. There's certainly a need for the 2004 USC page, but unless the others will be expanded and creating short, useless content like that isn't needed. --MECU≈talk 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2003 and 2004 pages were both edited with completely copyrighted material from the teams prior media guides. I deleted the content and placed a copyright violation template on the page.--NMajdan•talk 23:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USC year pages 

message: I found this image :Image:Football helmet gerald g 01.svg today on openclipart.org (their images are PD).  Would someone who has software to do svg be willing to recolor it to something less flashy than green?  I think this image would be nice to try out for the stub images.  The football is wonderful for the UBXes and wikiproject tags ... but it looks a little small on the stub and I thought it would be nice to try this one.
 This college football-related article is a stub.  You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].:Category:College football stubsstub:Category:American football stubs
Any thoughts?  This would be something nice to distinguish us from WP:NFL  ... but it needs a less obtrusive color ... BigDT 18:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current image is fine. --MECU≈talk 21:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another image for logos 

message: Hello, I started an article on Wikiquote about college football.  The article is currently being considered for deletion.  If you have additioanl quotes that should be added, please make them to the article.  If you have a wikiquote login and wish to participate in the deletion discussion, it is here.  Note that deletion discussions are not votes, so please be prepared to discuss and not simply vote an opinion. Johntex\talk 02:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johntex, I have a quote over on the Portal or Portal Talk page that you can add to Wikiquote.--NMajdan•talk 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - I copied over all 3 quotes from our portal.  I'm new to contributing to Wikiquote, so I don't know exactly what we/they need to see in order to keep the article. Johntex\talk 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one more that I submitted on the Portal talk page.--NMajdan•talk 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiQuote

message: I'd like to submit Bowl Championship Series for GA status. It's quite well written and has some great content. The only area I think it may be weak in is the Controversies area. Also, maybe the  or  should be added to the Future section? Please review and provide feedback on the whole article. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 01:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review before submit for GA Status 

message: Hey, I think other people have already caught and reverted his edits, but keep an eye out for edits from 64.81.90.226 on your pages.  He has been hitting a lot of school athletics pages in the Big 12.  I know Johntex already caught a few and fixed them.  Just a "heads-up." Z4ns4tsu 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's blocked (well, the IP is blocked) for the next week. I foresee vandalism could be a major problem with overzealous fans. --MECU≈talk 20:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yep. Getting to be that time of the season. Hope everybody has their POPUP tool ready to go.--NMajdan•talk 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least he's been taken care of, <style='sarcasm: on-full'> though for all I care, you could ban the whole state of Nebraska...f#$%ing hillbillies</style>. Z4ns4tsu 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I enjoyed blocking him for a week.  My "block button" never seems to run out of bullets, so if the whole state of Nebraska (or Alabama or California or Texas) comes to spew POV about their favorite team, I'll just enjoy blocking them all.  :-) Johntex\talk 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to have an admin on the team. --MECU≈talk 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as they don't mess with UMD articles I'm just fine.  Mess with Duke all you want, just leave MD alone -PhattyFatt 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal on the loose