Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Aug2007

message: We have some disagreements over the coverage of the A&M game on the Colt McCoy page and would like some opionions on how much coverage should be given to a particular incident.    Please leave your comments at Talk:Colt_McCoy#Section_Break.   Thanks!  Corpx 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need comments regarding [[Colt McCoy]] 

message: I have a couple peer review requests up at WP:CFB/PR. I would appreciate if anybody took a look at them.↔NMajdan•talk 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple peer reviews 

message: Please see Talk:2007 BCS computer rankings and provide input to the issue. MECU≈talk 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested 

message: I've cleaned up the archive files
* Moved from the dead Werdnabot to MiszaBot for autoarchiving.
* They are all now in the nice monthly format (previously 2 were just numbers and the rest were monthly)
* Manually moved some threads back to the month of the thread start date (the shadowbot clone of the dead werdnabot apparently didn't get that aspect quite right)
* Turned on the Indexerbot (which should run sometime in the near future); this is a nice feature for finding old discussions.
* Reformatted the archive box and the overall placement on this page.
All in all, a nice pre-season cleaning -- KelleyCook 20:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kelley!↔NMajdan•talk 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:CFB Archive clean up 

message: I was looking at some of the soccer sites today.  In their tournament pages, they have the current year's tournament built into the info box.  I know we have some teams with current season pages, so I added a line into the infobox.  Check it out at TCU Horned Frogs football General125 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to fix or change the image (it's a soccer ball) associated with that parameter.  Otherwise, not a bad idea.  But why isn't the division included in the template (or that particular instance of the template on that article)?  --ElKevbo 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind about the soccer-ball image.  It appears to be in widespread use for all sports.  I don't particularly care for that but I understand the practice.  --ElKevbo 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I thought the samething about the stupid soccer ball.  If someone has a nice cartoon football, maybe we could come up with our own?   What do you mean by division in the template? General125 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the team in one of the Division I subdivisions, Division II, or Division III?  --ElKevbo 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bleh, I kinda disagree on this.  Even though the article exists, I think it gets too much into the covering current events thing (WP:NOT#NEWS) Corpx 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We could probably put something in there called League and it would link to NCAA Div I, II, or even NAIA, etc. General125 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we name it "League" and not "Division"?  --ElKevbo 02:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:NCAAFootballSchool 

message: Someone has recently changed the priority level of Lou Holtz's page to high.  It had been rated as low priority before that.  I believe he should be rated mid priority.  If you have any input to give, please give it on Lou Holtz's talk page.  Thanks!  Gopherguy 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never done any work on prioritizing so I don't really know what the criteria are, but as much as I hate Holtz and ND, the man did win a national championship.  I've got to believe that deserves no lower than mid, and perhaps even a high priority. Seancp 22:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for the definitions on priority.↔NMajdan•talk 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really matter? Corpx 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since they were asking what priority the article should have AND we, as a project, have defined priorities, I thought I'd let them know where those definitions were. Do priorities matter in the grand scheme of things? No. Matter of fact, when I rate articles, I typically leave priority blank. Also, on the Univ of Oklahoma project page I created, I didn't even use the priority field.↔NMajdan•talk 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou Holtz priority 

message: Comments needed @ Talk:Vince_Young#Statistics where an editor thinks these stats can be removed from articles based on WP:EL.   Thanks.  Corpx 06:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of college stats based on [[WP:EL]]

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Gary Cismesia is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: Gary Cismesia 

message: I'd like to add a dropdown to our banner that included the assessment comments for easy viewing.  has exactly what I'm referring to. Look at that template - I'm trying to add the "Assessment comments" part to our template but have ran into some issues. I'm going to keep looking into this, but if anybody else wants to take a stab at it, feel free. I've been adding some comments to some B rated articles on what needs to be done to get it to GA. This makes it easily visible from the Talk page of the article itself.↔NMajdan•talk 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, think I got it.↔NMajdan•talk 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Nice job, if you have any more template ?s, I'll be glad to help out - just hit me up with a note on my talk page about where the discussion is.  If i can't do it, i know a few people who are uber-awesome at editing templates. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to {{tl|WikiProject College football}} 

message: hi, just thought i'd mention that Penn State football, for such a storied program (far as i can tell), appears to be badly underdeveloped compared to say, Texas Longhorns football. maybe knowledgable folks here would be willing to give it some attention. Mct mht 00:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with Wikipedia its limited by (1) the number of editors working on a general topic (like college football) and (2) the interests of those people who happen to be working in that area (i.e. Texas or USC vs. Penn State).  The good thing is that anyone, including yourself, who thinks more should be written in an area can go out and start adding (correct, preferably cited) information! --Bobak 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penn State 

message: I've just listed my new page Birth of Minnesota Golden Gophers football for peer review at WP:CFB/PR.  I'm interested in getting the article rated and getting ideas on how to improve it.  Thanks!  Gopherguy | Talk 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'll be glad to jump in if i'm still around in a bit, but one question - the content looks like it's heading in the right direction, but I'm not sure the article title meets WP:NAME.  Why would this not be something like "History of Minnesota Golden Gophers football"? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article title should be History of Minnesota Golden Gophers football.↔NMajdan•talk 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'd appreciate hearing what others think.  I named it "Birth of" instead of "History of" because this article only covers the timeframe of the start of the sport in 1882 through the 1899 season, so it only covers a small part of our history.  I was originally going to call it "19th century Minnesota Golden Gophers football" or "Minnesota Golden Gophers football from 1882 through 1899" but I didn't think either title captured the fact that we were dealing with the very beginnings of the program.  It was also pointed out to me here that a title like that will seem artificial because I picked a nice, round year like 1900 as the time boundary when, in fact, 1900 is a very significant year for our program as it represented the start of our first long-term coach.  My gut says that "Birth of" is the best way to name the page, but it's not written in stone or anything.  Gopherguy | Talk 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * How's Early history of Minnesota Golden Gophers football? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - that makes a lot of sense.  I'll rename the page after the peer review process and DYK nominations have finished just so I don't cause confusion about where the page is.  Gopherguy | Talk 22:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sounds good, I'm trying to deal with a pretty intense situation right now, but i'll be glad to throw in my two cents shortly.  You've definitely started in the right direction - i just haven't read any of the content.  I am hoping to have my situation dealt with today and then to finish up my massive edits to Joe Montana that i've bene working on for a few weeks.  Once that's done, I'll be available to look at this if needed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Does this still need some attention? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the page was listed in the DYK items last night, so once I've gotten some comments about the page through the peer review process I'll go ahead and rename the page, updating links as appropriate.  Gopherguy | Talk 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review requested for Birth of Minnesota Golden Gophers football 

message: Unless I've missed it, we don't seem to have a template for standings.  Whenever I see them on pages, they always seem to be done by hand with wikitable.  I think one should be developed for general use.  Does anyone care to take a stab?  I'm willing to give it a try, but I've never created a template, so I'd have to learn the language before I could dive in.  Gopherguy | Talk 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Great idea.  I'm in the middle of doing something on another template, but as soon as i'm done (hopefully with in the next 30 min.) I'll be glad to help you out with this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm starting to work on it User:Jmfangio/standings template.  I'm going to finish the table layout and then convert it into a template of sorts. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look - I've left some of my thoughts on how it could work on your user talk page.  Gopherguy | Talk 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Quick note - i left a message there for you so lmk your thoughts and then i'll respond. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standings template? 

message: I recently changed this template to make it more like  and  (on a side note, is there a naming convention for these types of templates? they seem to be all over the place with some combination of School or Mascot, Football, and Teams or Seasons) with every season listed, and perfect seasons and national championships listed in a table below it. My reasoning and such are on the talk page Template talk:NotreDameFootballSeasons and I was hoping people could weigh in on their opinions there about the new format (I don't know if anyone actually watches the template, no one replied the first time). Also, it seems like there is a problem putting this template above others, which puts the others inside this template. I temporarily fixed the problem by putting it below other templates on the pages it is on, but I was hoping someone in this project might know more and be able to fix it. Just wanted to try and get some feedback. Phydend 03:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided before that we shouldn't create individual season pages for non-notable (ie, non national championship) seasons in the past. It's okay to do so going forward with the present, but to go create 1900-1989 for Colorado wouldn't be of value. These are then lumped together by the head coach, so "Colorado Buffaloes football under Gary Barnett" instead of a page for each of his seasons. The by-season template could reflect that as well. There isn't a naming standard. We just track these on the master team table for ease. If anyone wants to standardize the names, go ahead, and then put it on the naming standards page as well. MECU≈talk 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I definitely wasn't planning on making the individual season pages except possibly for national championships (if I, or someone else, ever gets around to it). I think there was an AfD in the past about individual seasons that was withdrawn, but when it was over I know at least the LSU pages were all merged to pages like LSU Tigers football, 1900-1909. So like I said, if I get around to it I might create articles like the LSU one and then lump the non-notable ones under coaches (like your example of "Colorado Buffaloes football under Gary Barnett"). When that happens I'll change the template to point to those pages. Phydend 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|NotreDameFootballSeasons}} 

message: I would like to call people to join in an imortant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates ranges in infoboxes/templates.  This project has a number of infoboxes where this discussion is applicable. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style Discussion 

message: I just discovered 2007 Mountain West football season which doesn't follow our standard formats because it's a conference and not individual teams. But, these teams won't likely get covered otherwise, (sans TCU & BYU which already has a page) so it may be a good idea to bulk these less-covered teams into pages like this for starters, and split out teams if it gets to big later. Just including schedules though may make this single page rather large though. Any ideas? MECU≈talk 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2007 Mountain West football season]] 

message: 2007 preseason polls (AP and USA TODAY) are up! Here's a direct link. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a simple table to keep track of both polls.  The rankings are extended beyond 25 — many teams not in the Top 25 still receive votes.  Currently there are 53 teams that received votes in either poll (47 in AP and 49 in USA TODAY).  I did not think it would be appropriate to create a page for this, so the table is on my user page.  I will try to update the table as often as possible.  If anyone knows of an article in which the table might be useful, let me know. Iowa13 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound like you might not be aware of the 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings article where the project already tracks the big polls (and the 2006 version). Also, I've seen one (or both) of the AP and Coach's polls caution against using the "Others receiving votes" as a ranking; they don't support the idea that those represent #26, #27, etc. AUTiger » talk 22:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings article several minutes after posting.  I was not aware that the polls do not encourage rankings extension.  Thanks for that piece of information. Iowa13 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Preseason polls 

message: I went through the first 20 2007 season pages listed on 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season and mostly fixed the use of the schedule template (or lack thereof). Please use the schedule template instead of creating a table for standardization purposes (see ). Also, please do not use TBA for time/tv information. This was heavily discussed before and nearly unanimously decided against using it. Please help me get all these standardized by finishing them off from Miami Redhawks on down the list. Also, the LSU and Miami Hurricanes recruits need to be put into the template system. 
For anyone that is new, we have many templates developed to make your job of keeping these pages up to date easier, just see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Templates. Also, please see the standard season page format we developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format which was developed amid much discussion.
Lastly, if you need help with anything, just ask for it here! I and the others that have been around awhile thing using these template systems are easy (we created them), but if you need help, we'd be glad to help you. If you have questions, ask away. MECU≈talk 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed on one of the season pages you changed the date from (ex.) 8/30/2007 to August 30. Is that preferable? On the  it says date and the examples are all of the 8/30/2007 kind, while the Yearly team pages format gives the August 30 kind. Like you said, for standardization purposes, which one should it be? Phydend 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard on the season page was the 8/30/07, but putting 07 is redundant and so I changed it to just August 30. I'll go update the examples on the template pages. So if it's the 8/30 way, it isn't wrong, but it should be changed, especially since linking the date like August 30 will allow users' preference date setting to be used (in other parts of the world it will get displayed as 30 August). MECU≈talk 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing it up. Phydend 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will that look right for January Bowls?  While I assume readers aren't stupid, I think some Wikipedians do and it might inevitably come up --might have the answer ready to go now. --Bobak 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've kept the years and updated the all USC season page schedules to the correct format.  Thanks again for the tip.  The only confusing issue was that, if you don't have the times, you need to turn it off (no) on each entry or it automatically throws in a blank (at least when I did it). --Bobak 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by if it will look right for January Bowls? I guess you mean because it's 2008 (for example) and since none of the other dates have years it will look funny? I doubt it. Throw the 2008 in on the end as well. It should be a mark of pride that it looks funny since they got to a Jan bowl. I'm fine with adding the 2007s, but perhaps just add them if it needs a 2008 for clarity? MECU≈talk 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things: (1) I was concerned the boxes might resize funny if only one box had the the additional 6 character/spaces for year and (2) without the new year clarified I could see someone complaining that it might be misconstrued as January of the same year as the rest of the game (silly, I agree, but not something I would put past happening).  With that said, I just tried out your suggestion on dates on one of the article I was working on (2004 Trojans) and it worked well.  --Bobak 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for things to do? 

message: OK, well, something I've been planning to do for a while and just started today has been nominated for deletion.  I think the main LSU Tigers football page should be mostly prose, like Oklahoma Sooners football is.  There was a ton of tables and other non-prose like information in the article, so to remedy that I created LSU Tigers football supplemental information.  I had brought this idea up here a few months ago, asking for naming suggestions.  So anyway, I created it today and moved the tables from LSU Tigers football to LSU Tigers football supplemental information and just a few minutes ago it got AfD'd!  See:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSU Tigers football supplemental information  So here the thing...if it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia then fine....we'll delete the article.  But I feel like it does have a place on Wikipedia, especially since this information existed for a couple years on the LSU Tigers football article without anyone complaining about it ever.  I would appreciate your comments on the AfD page.  Thanks.  Seancp 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's stuff you usually find in a media guide, along with lots of other trivial information.   I say put it at WikiSource Corpx 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article For Deletion - Opinions Please 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Marve and comment there. MECU≈talk 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I really do not think articles should be created for recruits/players who havent played a down of football, let alone start for their respective team(s).   This stuff belongs on rivals.com/scout.    Corpx 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD for [[Robert Marve]] 

message: I have nominated 2005 Texas Longhorn football team as a featured article candidate.  All feedback is very welcome. Johntex\talk 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Nom 

message: :*Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb Tyler 
Corpx 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Wickersham]] 

message: We need 3rd party opinions on whether List of career achievements by Vince Young should exist or be merged back into Vince Young.   Please leave comments at User_talk:Corpx#Vince_Young.   Thanks! Corpx 08:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of achievements by ____ 

message: Yes, fellow WikiProjectionists(?), the strength of this entire project is the giant army of citizen editors and the long lens of their cameras.  Are you going to a game?  Take pictures!  They can be of the game (great for season pages for both teams), the stadium (cheap seats are great for stadium photos, let me tell you...), the school (esp. if they don't have much), the traditions, and even players and coaches if you can get close enough.  Are you near your team's practice?  While they may not be cool with you visiting the actual practice (some are), you can always try and get photos as they leave or enter --a lot of players love that attention.  If you'd rather not ask for just their picture, get your picture with them and simply crop a version of just them for here (that's how I've contributed some celebrity photos).  Do you know someone who's taken photos and would be willing to give them to Wikipedia under a friendly license? (CC "free with attribution" are a good lure)  Then offer to help upload and credit them.  So remember to go out there and shoot someone this season! --Bobak 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be hard to get photos.   Most people on message boards who take pics will gladly (at least in my experience) license it out under cc2.5.    Its kinda hard to get good pics unless you have a uber leet camera though :( Corpx 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOU are Wikipedia's best photographers (Take pics this season) 

message: Just to let you guys know, over half the BCS schools do not have a 2007 season article. Here's all the teams without one: CardinalHawkeye17's sandbox. I will get to work on the Big Ten schools included and I also might start one for Iowa State. The season's only a few days away so I guess the sooner we start them the better. I realize they might not all get created but there are a few notable teams like Rutgers that need one. Thanks. CardinalHawkeye17 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should create a page just because they are a "BCS school". If they are top25 then they should be created and everyone in WP:CFB should help keep it updated, otherwise (ala, Colorado, my team) they should only be created if someone is willing to keep it updated and put the effort into it. What we decided before was that any season can be created and kept if it's updated and well-maintained because it could be useful in the end and we don't know at the start and to encourage more coverage without the fear that in the end it will be deleted. But, creating these without support is kind of meaningless. Unless we're willing to say as a project that we'll at least cover the schedule and some other minimums we adopt? We could decide what the minimum for a page is (schedule, coaches, players/roster, etc)? MECU≈talk 02:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The minimum idea is a good one. Honestly, I think an intro and schedule along with the team template that goes at the top right should be the bare minimum. I've seen pages relating to seasons in the 1800s and early 1900s and that seems to be the norm among individual seasons. Rosters and players for teams way back could be very hard to find unless you have some good sources. CardinalHawkeye17 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 season 

message: See :Category:Unassessed college football articles where most of the 191 articles there are stadiums. I think we weren't including stadiums under the project and would like to continue that way, but is there a Stadiums WikiProject that we can send all these to instead? Anyone have a problem with this? MECU≈talk 12:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just annex it :) Nothing wrong with being under the scope of multiple wikiprojects (if another one exists) Corpx 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think stadiums should be apart of the project. The stadium is a very important part of a college football team. You've got The Big House, The Swamp, The 'Shoe....↔NMajdan•talk 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am the one that tagged most of the stadiums.  :Category:College football venues is listed on the College Football project page under “Wikipedia articles on College football.”  Under the Scope section of the project, stadiums fall into “Anything else relating to college football.”  Most of the stadiums are primarily used for college football.  If there is better project for these articles I have no objections to moving them, but I did not see one when I was tagging them.  If the articles were tied to a project it was mainly associated with at geographic area or state project. 09er 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadiums as part of this project? 

message: In the article Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest, someone added "(16 m)" to a phrase, making it read "stopped at Minnesota's ten-yard (16 m) line".  Ignoring the fact that it should be 9 meters (the person who put it in was thinking km to miles when he did the conversion), how does everyone feel about this?  For the time being, since the actual measurement was wrong, I removed it from the article.
Personally, I think that the "ten yard line" is more than a distance measurement - it's essentially the name of a specific place on the field and putting a metric measurement in with it obscures that fact.  If we were talking about the distance a home run was hit or a javelin was thrown then I would absolutely agree with tacking on the metric equivalent (although you could probably argue that the javelin throw should feature the metric measurement as the primary one).  Or if the article said that "Northwestern was stopped 10 yards from the goal line" I think that it could be argued that a metric equivalent made sense.  I'd like to know what others think.  Gopherguy | Talk 18:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting thought.  I mean, when you say a running back had a 1,537 yard season, you don't really think how far that is in feet let alone meters.  It's more of the special "football" measurement. I'd love to hear other opinions.  --Bobak 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That is an interesting thought, but I agree that the 10-yard line is a specific place, not exactly a measurement on the field. I can see the metric equivalent being added to yards in a season or a game, but I really do think the specific yard lines shouldn't have it. Phydend 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Corpx. Although if somebody really made a push, I would probably agree to allowing metric measures on statistics but definitely not on field placements.↔NMajdan•talk 16:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an interesting argument.  I noticed it yesterday on a read-through of one of the CFB articles as well (I think it was actually on College football, but I could be mistaken).  I agree that the phrase "10 yard line" has a specific meaning that is only slightly related to the measurement of distance, however, saying that metric doesn't belong in CFB articles at all is a bit too much.  Yes, we've had recent discussions about internationalization of CFB articles and the consensus was that since CFB is a primarily American subject, American English standards should apply.  That doesn't mean that we can completely ignore international norms (like the SI system of measurement).  I'd say add metric equivalents where distance is being discussed and leave it out of field placements. After all, even in the CFL it's a "10 yard line" not a "9 metre line." z4ns4tsu\talk 17:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it was that way for NFL Europe too. MECU≈talk 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric measurements 

message: I was told that it had been discussed before and non-notable past seasons for teams should be placed in articles grouped by the head coach (like <School name><Mascot name>football under<Coach name>. So I created a page (Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham) of three pretty non-notable seasons (no national championships, no BCS games). But now, someone suggested the article be split because it is POV to have an article like this and not other coaches. I can't find where this was discussed to say that the seasons should be grouped under coaches, because I want to cite it to oppose the split. Does someone know where this is and could point it out to me? Also if anyone wants to add to the discussion please see here. Thanks. Phydend 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it's been resolved. I would still like to see where this consensus was decided upon (I think it's a great idea, it's much easier this way), but no one needs to weigh in on the discussion anymore.Phydend 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the archives of this page somewhere. If I had to guess, it'd be in May. Use your search feature on your browser to help you. The links to all the archives are at the top right of the page. MECU≈talk 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldnt it be a rehash of the 2002, 03, 04 Notre Dame Football seasons?   I personally see it as unnecessary Corpx 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears they have started covering the history by having everything at Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football#History but then have season pages 2002 (which just has a schedule) and every year since, so yes, a Notre Dame under Ty could be redundant, but since the 2002-2004 pages are just a schedule, they should be deleted and the Ty article be developed. See Template:NotreDameFootballSeasons. MECU≈talk 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at it this way - if the season articles are very small, I'd prefer them to be grouped under a "under coach" page, but if the individual seasons have a significant amount of information, then I'd rather leave them separate and an "under coach" page is unnecessary.  That's why I haven't created a Minnesota Golden Gophers football under Glen Mason page even though there is a Minnesota Golden Gophers football under Jim Wacker page - I will eventually add enough information to the individual seasons under Mason (and will add the two that don't have pages yet) to make them good enough to stand on their own, but I don't think that the seasons under Wacker will ever be as fleshed out enough to justify individual pages.  Gopherguy | Talk 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was planning to bring up to redirect the 2002, 2003, and 2004 to the Ty article. I made the 2002 and 2003 pages redirects after I made the Ty article, but someone decided to take the schedules from the article to make templates, remove the redirect from those pages, and put the templates on the pages. I was going to bring up the discussion on those pages soon, just haven't had much time (I'd already brought up the discussion on the 2004 page). The old discussion on this is on the March archive, but it is pretty short, so if anyone wants to bring up problems, now would be just as good a time as any. There are already examples of grouping like this (see most of the Penn State articles, like Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno (as an Independent) and Penn State Nittany Lions football under Rip Engle) and I don't think the page goes against any of wikipedia's guidelines. The page isn't just stats or schedules, and I think it's much better to group them like this instead of having the individual articles for pretty non-notable seasons that probably won't get expanded much. Phydend 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems ideal - to redirect the seasons articles to <School> under <Coach> Corpx 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect solution is what I used when I created Oklahoma Sooners football under Bob Stoops to cover the 1999 and 2001-2005 seasons. z4ns4tsu\talk 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teams under coaches articles 

message: Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Note I do have some concerns about your notabilty guidelines, (I don't agree with the notabilty of certain college football players and seasons) but we could always discuss on the talk once its moved to wikipedia namespace. Again the community decides this. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't this issue been beaten to death already?  And then Johnny-Come-Lately here comes around and nominates a plethora of articles for AfD.  It's just so frustrating the amount of time spent defending legitimate articles on AfD pages.  Jaranda, please accept already established standards and let the work of making Wikipedia the BEST college football resource on the internet get done.  Seancp 23:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's notabilty for all sports, which is obviously needed Jaranda wat's sup 23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  The same rule should apply everywhere.  If there is interest that transcends mere reporting of the person's existence, they are notable.  The same goes for teams, rivalries, etc. As with all things, if it meets our general content requirements (NOR, V, etc), we shouldn't be overly anxious to get rid of it.  That said, a lot of these team pages are totally uncited and that needs to be fixed. --B 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree 100% that this needs to be addressed.  A universal notability standard is not possible or practical for sportspersons.  For example open wheel racing and stock car racing are two very different sports.  What constitutes a notable athlete in association football is likely to be very different than an athlete in the National Basketball Association. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yea I went to all the wikiprojects I could find that have some activity (with the exception of baseball and american football ones, which I will write), if WP:MUSIC exists, this clearly needs to exist as well, and it needs to include all different types of major sports to counter bias, dealing with certain articles, and such. Notabilty of certain College Football articles are a subject that are sometimes discussed to death, a notabilty guideline on them will be helpful. And the community decides all changes per consensus, not me of course. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I will mark that page for watching and I am happy to help discuss the creation of standards, while I'm sure there will be a number of opinions, i am well versed on a number of sports that are not "common to america" and that might help! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)]] 

message: Under the football sub header of Texas Longhorns, the disagreement is about this line.   Specific part is bolded.
The Longhorn football program experienced its greatest sustained success under the guidance of legendary head coach Darrell Royal, former Oklahoma Sooner safety and quarterback, who led Texas to three National Championships (in 1963, 1969, and 1970) during his twenty-year career with the Longhorns (1957-1976).
The disagreement is whether the highlighted part deserves to be mentioned there.   Please leave comments at Talk:Texas_Longhorns#DKR.2FFormer_OU_safety Thanks! Corpx 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need third opinion