Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format

message: I had this on the main page talk page, but it was buried under a previous lengthy discussion and didn't get any responses, so I moved it here.--NMajdan•talk 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schedule template

message: Just off the top of my head, there was Talk:NHL Entry Draft. ed g2s • talk 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Talk:NHL Entry Draft discussion does not apply here because the use in question there was excessive.  Every player had a team logo beside their name.  On 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team there are two logos on the page, one which illustrates the university and team being discussed in the article as a whole, the other is that of their next opponent and is the focus of that section of the article. And before you say it, read some case law, the amount of use is directly related to the court's decision in most fair use cases, it is even a part of the law as it is written in the United States (which would have sole jurisdiction over this matter).Additionally, it would appear from reading your talk page that you have been involved in multiple fair use disputes in the past with little to no discussion involved, just you acting unilaterally to remove images. In many cases, you did so without consulting the editors of a page or even checking the article's talk pages to see if the matter has been addressed before. This is just personal, but you might want to read over WP:Etiquette again. Z4ns4tsu 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That isn't much of a discussion, it's the assertation by one person on your side of the argument your same argument. It doesn't address the comments and arguments we have brought up. I'm tired of your lack of contribuition to the discussion, single-minded focus on your sole argument that this has been resolved and your way is correct, and am referring this to dispute resolutions without waiting for further votes from my vote taking below and removing it from below (comment it out). If you wish to see it, just edit the page to view. --MECU≈talk 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NHL Entry Draft Example

message: I am responding to the following posted on [[this page: Jimbo Wales' statement
:I don't believe this is relevant to this discussion. It deals with how to handle users that blatently and consistently post copyvio items. While one side believes these images are in copyvio, the other side doing so does not. If the outcome of this discussion concludes that these images should not be used in this manner, anyone informed of this discussion that then continues to post these images in these manners, would then be applicable to Jimbo's comments above. Until then, however, these images have not been determined to be copyvio, and as such, users actions that have posted these do not apply to his comments. However, no one should be posting/using these images in this manner until the dispute is solved. Please, everyone, refrain from removing, replacing these images until the dispute is solved. If a new user comes along and creates a new page (or replaces them), inform them of this discussion and the truce that is current. Please do not further remove or replace images the new user has done either. --MECU≈talk 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo Comment on Copyvio

message: I'm going to attempt to add all the relative links on this topic from the various locations they have occured. If you find of or know of others, please add them to the list. Please make the link go directly there, and junotest just to the page. Please centralize all discussions here. --MECU≈talk 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Pages

message: I've seen different ways of labeling the "Opponent" section name. Some pages use: "University of Michigan", others use "Michigan" or "Week 1: Michigan" and others might use "Michigan Wolverines". I'd like to propose that just "Michigan" be used. I believe "University of ..." is too formal, "Week 1:" is semi-redundant (it only becomes semi-useful when they have a bye week, but is seeing "Week 1:" and then "Week 4:" really useful? The text should describe if they have a layoff). Any comments? --MECU≈talk 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Just use the name of the school with a wikilink to the respective yearly article, football article, athletics article or school article.↔NMajdan•talk 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikilinks in section titles are against the WP:MOS. I'm not talking about in the schedule table or under the weekly sections. Specifically, where we use ===Michigan=== (for example). --MECU≈talk 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I did. Section titles. Well, I prefer "University of..." as I am not a fan of one word section titles. How would you propose to identify University of Texas-El Paso? As University of Texas-El Paso, or Texas-El Paso, or UTEP? Also, you may want to point out this discussion over at WT:CFB as I don't think many people watch this page.↔NMajdan•talk 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer "Texas-El Paso", UTEP is too short and acronyms should be avoided (like USC) to prevent confusion and brevity. I will point here from WT:CFB. --MECU≈talk 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Opponent" Name 

message: *Think that the "Post-season" section could better be renamed to something like "After the season".  A conversation on this point has started on an article talk page.  Please come by and participate. Thanks! Johntex\talk 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Based upon the discussion linked above, I am going to change the recommendations here to "Before the season" and "After the season". Johntex\talk 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Post-season" vs "After the season"

message: What, if any, place does a team roster have on the yearly team pages?
See example:  DAWGinRoswell  Dawginroswell (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Rosters 

message: Should this template change  to ? -AllisonFoley (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linescore 

message: ,  according to this game summaries should be prose. Does that mean that we should work to remove game boxes, example current version of North Carolina?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This format page needs updating. I think we should have game boxes, but there are least three different styles of boxes in use. We need to standardize this to one format. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are four kinds of boxes in use at the North Carolina page: (1) overall game box (the original and standard), (ii) team stat box (a relatively new addition), (iii) individual leaders box (a relatively new addition), and (iv) betting line box. All four are presented here with zero prose description of the game. The lack of prose is the biggest problem IMO. With prose, I think the first three boxes are useful. I would favor disallowing the betting line box. Cbl62 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game boxes