Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jul2007

message: As seems to happen around about right now, everyone in the country seems to think Gameday is going to be headed their way.  I have commented out two claims about Gameday .  The ONLY game that is locked in right now is week one - ECU@VT.  There had been a claim up there that Gameday would  be at the Labor Day game between FSU and Clemson ... I guess that's possible ... but the link cited mentions nothing of it.  also, someone had added today a claim that Gameday would be at PSU-ND for week two.  I'd say there's about a 99% chance that's where they go, but until something is official, it needs to be kept off.  Please add  to your watchlist and help keep the speculation off or commented out.  Thanks. --BigΔT 14:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the headsup.↔NMajdan•talk 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[College Gameday (football)]] 

message: After seeing a ton of portals not updated today, I have created a template called .  If you fill it out for the portal that interests you, you can get an automatic warning that a portal page doesn't exist.  It will warn you if either this month's article or next month's article is missing. For example, I have put these warnings at the top of our page:




Enjoy! --BigΔT 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway to only have it display after a certain date? Like right now it says that the article for August doesn't exist, but its July 1st and there is plenty of time to add it. Any way to only have it display after a certain day, like the 15th? I can think of a way to do this and may experiment with it tomorrow. Glad I created the CFB Portal stuff for July early. A couple of the other Portals I update haven't been updated yet for July so thats something I have to do tomorrow.↔NMajdan•talk 00:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to check closely who fixed the CFB article+picture this month. ;)  Anyway, yes, it could very easily be changed:

... I'm torn on whether that's a good idea ... maybe make it an optional parameter.  I think having the warning up there if it isn't ready a month early would be a good idea. --BigΔT 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it wasn't me! Thanks for doing that. I've been real busy at work lately and my Wikipedia time is way down. Yes, I had every intention of making it an optional parameter and I do think it is a good idea. I don't think that warning banner at the top should be visible until the latter half of a month. Who cares if the next month's article hasn't been selected a month in advance. It should be a warning like, "Hey, the next month is almost here and the article hasn't been selected." Any other opinions on this?↔NMajdan•talk 13:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's changed, it needs to be an option that defaults to the whole month.  Keep in mind that some WikiProjects aren't as active and it might not get noticed if it's just there for two weeks. --BigΔT 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I declare it to be Virginia Tech month for abandoned portals. --BigΔT 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|portalwarning}} 

message: Should marching bands like Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band be under the WP:CFB? While I see the relationship, I don't think they should because we're more football related than just general school related. Then again, mascots are like Ralphie so I'm slightly torn. Any ideas? MECU≈talk 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm; bands are related to college football in a similar way as mascots; it's all part of the pageantry that makes college football what it is. Aubie is also marked as part of WP:CFB and yet ranges far beyond football in his presence and prominence. If it makes any difference, a member of this project, Littledrummrboy just started  WikiProject Marching band. AUTiger » talk 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the plug, Autiger. As a fan of both college football and marching bands, my take is that marching bands do fit here (and I specify marching bands because a large amount of their purpose is typically college football based; the same can't be said for pep, concert, or other university bands) because as Autiger said, they are part of the pageantry that makes college football unlike any other institution. But of course, they've certainly got a home over at WikiProject Marching band! --Littledrummrboy 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Bands under WP:CFB? 

message: I propose that we add the winning team's logo to the page of each year's bowl and season page, seeing as the way the site is set up now as a separate season and bowl page, to add more color and formality to the page. As you can see from the World Cup 2006 page, I implemented showing the flag of the winning country sort of as a badge/award for winning the cup. For example it will look something like this...
2006 NCAA Football Champion
Florida Gators2nd Title
I'm also thinkin about doing the same for the conference champions, for those individual pages only as well as individual BCS bowl year pages, ie 2007 Sugar Bowl. Let me know if you guys approve/disapprove or have any suggestions. Thanks!! Squadoosh 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I removed the logo from above.) There's a big difference between flags and logos: Flags are free. Just adding the logo of the winner isn't a good idea and wouldn't really pass our fair use criteria, because it would be decorative. We tried before having both logos on articles about a specific game and I think we eventually lost that battle. It's built into the template I created for a game header, but we can't use it because of the un-freeness of logos. Really, I think we'd all support this idea and more liberal use of logos, but the fair use policy here prevents it. MECU≈talk 12:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, logos to represent teams in specific games are being used in certain circumstances.  Please see 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, for instance.  However, that is different than just being a logo in a table, which has been disallowed.  Many of us, myself included, think that Wikipedia has become too restrictive of fair use.  We need to work to change the policy to one that makes more sense.  We can start by voting for Foundation board members who support expansion of fair use. Johntex\talk 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Logo 

message: I added this to the talk page (actually agreed to a suggestion on it) but no one has replied in awhile. But anyway, this template has been changed every year without substituting it on pages, thus articles like NCAA football bowl games, 2005-06 has a template on it that gives dates for the 2006-07 games. It was suggested that this template be turned into a generic template for bowl games with no dates or anything, and then a new template  be created for the information here. I've worked on in here and have a generic template (of the current games I believe, they need to be in some sort of order though) and two templates for the 2004 season and 2005 season. These two can probably be just put onto pages that should have it (there are probably only a few), but the 2006 one can probably go on at least 10 pages so I was going to create that template. Any suggestions about this? Phydend 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a yearly one would be just fine. I agree that it would be better to have yearly which then remains and a generic one for the generic pages. MECU≈talk 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I did it. I made , , made  generic (I think defunct games could be included on it, but I didn't right now), and added a like template to the 04 season bowl game page and 2 games, but I didn't make it its own template. Phydend 04:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Bowl Games}} 

message: In case no one else noticed, User:ESkog just did semi-automated deletion of all galleries on bowl game articles using WP:AWB claiming violation of WP:NFCC #8. I believe it was a invalid interpretation of the policy particularly since some galleries had commentary on the logos. It is also clearly he searched blindly and did not check to see the usage because he deleted an empty gallery in Holiday Bowl. 
To prevent another unthinking vigilante action such as this, if bowl logos are added back they should not be done with a <gallery> tag and more importantly, should have commentary on the logo incorporated or have the historical logo incorporated into the history section, e.g. change of sponser, style, etc.
Furthermore, it appears the user taking this action also has a history deleting NFL team logos,  so be warned to validate your fair-use rationales, in case he decides to go after those. Admins, is there recourse for inappropriate use of automated tools like AWB? AUTiger » talk 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic bowl logos deleted 

message: The NCAA handed down the punishment to Oklahoma today and of course, many OU articles are being edited. I ask that everybody watch these for blatant vandalism and factual errors/misunderstandings. The NCAA forced OU to vacate the 2005 season, not forfeit. Here is a good article describing the difference that is not related to the OU situation. OU was forced to no longer recognize their wins in 2005. So, rather than being 8-4, they are 0-4. Opponents, must continue to claim a loss to OU as a loss (this would be different if it was forfeited). Bob Stoops' record will be adjusted to not count those 8 wins. So the losses in his record remain the same. Anyway, please help maintain the quality of these OU articles. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting - I remember looking into this issue a number of years ago (being a Gopher fan, our basketball program has a lot of vacated games) and I thought that the entire season would be considered to have not been played at all from the offending school's standpoint, making the team 0-0.  I know that the University of Minnesota basketball media guides list records of 0-0 for all of the seasons affected by the academic scandal.Gopherguy 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oklahoma damage control 

message: Hi people, I don't suspect I'll check in here much as I'm not joining this project (yet), but.. i did create  and .  I suspect they should get a lot of use here and they are now listed on your template page.  Be well. Jmfangio 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL templates 

message: I'd like to make a potentially controversial suggestion. Per WP:TFD, "Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes."  I was looking at :Category:American college football templates and noticed a handful of single season roster templates.  This is not common material and does not really promote standardization. I would recommend that this information be incorporated into the relevant articles and the templates be deleted.  From a practical perspective, it's going to be awfully difficult to maintain these templates if every single college football team starts getting a roster template for every season of play.  Additionally, the vast majority of college players do not meet notability standards.  Having a template for them seems somewhat counterintuitive. Jmfangio ► Talk  19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually looking at this before and these being used as templates are definitely not needed. I think the historical ones should just be substituted and deleted. A current roster could be used for some teams (I think the NFL pages have current rosters) and could be on each team page and updated each year while also being substituted on that particular season page. Phydend 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I already said go back and make the changes for now. I'm not going to be the one to do it, but i pointed you to the section on where to go about getting that done. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for Deletion 

message: Western Kentucky University officially joins D I-A (FBS) tomorrow, July 24th, 2007. They are in a "transition" period for 2 years and not eligible for conference (Sun Belt) or bowl games until their 2-year transition is over, starting with the 2009-2010 season. Anyone wanting to work on changing all the things that need to be changed because of this, please do so (category, the master team table, the number 119->120 everywhere, all the graphics, etc). MECU≈talk 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say welcome to the 120th D-IA team! (and there are many sports writers who aren't even following the new naming convention).  Big Red was always ready for the big time (wasn't it the only D-IAA mascot used in those Capital One Mascot Challenge commercials?) --Bobak 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a year when YoUDee was featured as well. --Littledrummrboy 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If the football transition is anything like the basketball transition, the NCAA will not list them a member of Division I-A until the transition period is over.  Games against them won't count towards Div I-A wins.  For the next two years will basically be in limbo.  Moreover there are still only 119 Div I teams.  So don't go changing articles quite yet.  -- KelleyCook 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how it works now, but I know that when we (VT) played Florida A&M in 2004, that counted as a 1-A win for us because when we scheduled them, FAMU was planning to move to 1-A and they aborted the move during the spring of 2004. VT and Illinois got special exemptions from the NCAA to count the game as 1-A.  As it was, it didn't matter - Illinois wasn't going bowling anyway and we needed to be 7-5 because of our pre-season game to go bowling anyway ... then the next year, the rule only allowing one 1-AA team every four years was done away with. --B 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there was a rule change where D-IA schools are allowed to count a certain, limited number of wins over D-IAA schools as a bowl qualifying win.  It wasn't one per season, but it allowed schools like The Citadel to get some extra paydays.  As for WKU, I agree that they're not full-fledged until the end of their pledge season (heh).  Now they get to be paddled by the major programs looking for a free "W".  --Bobak 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old rule (pre-2005) was that you could count one I-A win towards bowl eligibility every four years.  The new rule (2005 and on) is that you can count a I-A win every year.  When VT scheduled FAMU for 2004, they were originally planning to move to I-A (2004 would have been their first transition year), but due to some internal mismanagement, they decided that spring to abort the move.  The NCAA gave VT and Illinois credit for a I-A win because when we scheduled them, they were supposed to be I-A and it was too late to change. --B 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome Western Kentucky! 

message: Ok, I've been thinking about the scope of this project and I think we should exclude some things from the project. In light of the recent discussion about naming conventions, I'm beginning to question whether any non-American university should be in scope. I think the only universities that should be in scope should be NCAA universities. Also, I'm beginning to think we should not include marching bands in the college football wikiproject. Short of half-time shows, what correlation does a marching band have to a college football program? Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, explains a lot of the recent confusion.  Since "college football" is much more developed in the US (there isn't anything in the world close to the giant machine, good or bad, that surrounds the NCAA and related inter-institution college football), I'd recommend that the international equivalent be "university football" (esp. since the word "college" in many countries connotes a different sort of school than some of the major universities calling themselves college in the US).  Of course, the Canadians call inter-university Canadian football "university football".   As for marching bands, many of them only perform (in full size) at college football games, rallies or graduation ceremonies due to size limits.  I agree they could be moved into a different category. --Bobak 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band, I don't think there is a need to keep them under our umbrella when they are MUCH better suited under there. I'll wait for more input before I take any action.↔NMajdan•talk 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about if NCAA is under WP:CFB, and if someone wants to work on Canadian "college football", they can be a sub-project off of us, same for Europe and elsewhere as well. Since we have generally been NCAA focused, it makes sense, but these other topics should (eventually will) get covered, so whynot just have them a sub part of our project? They can use what we've got developed as a starting point and just contribute or adapt as needed to their specific needs (naming, portal, master team table, etc). I agree that the marching bands, since they have their own wikiproject, shouldn't be under us. MECU≈talk 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I think these are all excellent points. Just remember though, that this doesn't solve the naming conventions problem. Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What problem? Why don't we change all instances of National Football League to National American Football League? Don't mean to sound hostile but this shouldn't be discussed on this page anymore. That is, unless you are informing us of an RFC or some other form of mediation.↔NMajdan•talk 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * As for the NFL vs NAFL, the league name is the National Football League.  It's a proper name and thus, does not fall under the WP:D issue.  In regards to, "In light of the recent discussion about naming conventions, I'm beginning to question whether any non-American university should be in scope"; removing non-US institutions does not mean that the WP:D issue is resolved.  I was just clarifying that point in case there was some "assumption" based on that statement. Jmfangio| ►Chat  00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And "Michigan Wolverines football" team is the name of the American football team that is sponsored by the University of Michigan.Gopherguy 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Please stop making personal pov claims, I am agreeing with what is said above.  But the University of Michigan football team team is NOT officially named "Michigan Wolverines Football".  Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you define for me what would constitute them "officially" being called anything.  I'd argue that the fact that they choose to call themselves that (check their website or media guide or just call their athletic department and ask) makes them "officially" the "Michigan Wolverines football" team.  It's not a personal POV.  It's the University of Michigan's POV and since it's their team, I don't think anyone else's POV matters.Gopherguy 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to get off-topic in this section, but Jmfangio, please read Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns, Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms and WP:D#Primary_topic. Thanks, AUTiger » talk 05:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Thanks AU - will hop on that right now!  Definitely something for me to reread. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * This is exactly why it's good for people to use wiki documentation.  This will help move the discussion forward.  Now one point on the proper nouns article is "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name ..."  That  would support status quo if we were talking about a proper noun; but we aren't.  This is a descriptive name (that points to the appropriate section).  It says "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications."  I would contend that using football as opposed to American football is POV.  The dealing with self-identifying terms section says "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles."  I would absolutely, without hesitation say that the section points to using football vs. American football within the article content.  However, that does not appear to extend to the article title.  It goes on to say "Where there are two self-identifying names in use and both are descriptive, then the uncontroversial name should be used. "  Now from what i can tell, the projects contention is not that American football is ambiguous, rather it is simply "unnecessary".  Whereas, the name football is ambiguous.  I know people will argue that football is not ambiguous, but that is only within the context of the article.  These are a function of a policy, which seem to supersede guidelines (WP:D.  It stars off with "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase ...then that topic may be used for the title of the main article".  That absolutely supports status quo, however, I think that's not 100% applicable here.  Remember that the point is conditional (ie - it says "may" not "must"), but technically the article title is used to disambiguate between the various teams within an institutions athletic department (let's move away from specific ones).  If said university had only one athletic team, you could leave out the term "football" or "basketball" etc... from the article title. I think while the various documentation pages show some support for the status quo, they (as best I can tell) overtly support a different way of naming these articles.  Note, the quotations are not to patronize or antagonize anyone, they are inserted to assure that in case those pages change, the context of this discussion is relative to how they currently. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we really going to go through this all over again?  Seriously?  Either inform us of an RFC or some other form of mediation or drop the issue. Seancp 11:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret, Jmfangio, that you still remain unconvincing when (1) usage (googled for quick example), (2) economics (college football is a very, very rich "industry") --as well as the very definition of the word college football vs. college soccer; and the use of the term by NCAA and college teams.  If this were a trademark, "college football" --as used here-- would trounce whatever is held in the rest of the world, because college sports in the rest of the world do not come close to the (good or bad) size that they've reached in the US. I know you won't argue those points, because this is the third time the latter two have been brought up and there still isn't any adequate response.  Please move on and bother another wikiproject, because you're becoming a gadfly. --Bobak 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are misunderstanding and misapplying the concept of NPOV. As to the sections I pointed you to, one of the key points I hope you'd see was: Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.  Beyond that, I'm not going to go into detail (to avoid the appearance of  wikilawyering) but suffice it to say, I do not agree with your interpretation and application of the guidelines.  And once again, that's what we're debating over, guidelines, which are not black and white or absolute rules. All this debate time is taking away from improving and maintaining content. AUTiger » talk 22:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry that I was part of hijacking your topic... I think your proposed changes are the right way to go.Gopherguy 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Nobody objects, I'd say go for it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  16:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think I got rid of all the marching bands.↔NMajdan•talk 22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also got rid of all the BCAFL articles.↔NMajdan•talk 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we should clarify the name of the project to Wikiproject NCAA college football? I did notice you added text to clarify/focus the project scope in the description which is helpful. AUTiger » talk 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: So, this project has been going on for a little over a year and we still do not have one Featured Article. We have two Featured Lists, but we need a featured article. What Good articles are the closest to FA quality?↔NMajdan•talk 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you nominate Oklahoma Sooners football for FA and were rejected for not having enough "bad" (aka NPOV) parts and more references, etc? I would think that would then be the closest. Vince Young was an FA for a short time, but then fell back to a B last I saw. There are probably lots of B articles with a little polishing that could be GA's as well. MECU≈talk 21:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Oklahoma Sooners football failed for POV issues.14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Vince Young never actually made FA, only GA.  Then it got demoted primarily because the NFL portion of the article is poor (although there are issues with the college section also).  I have helped get several football articles to GA recently.  I think 2005 Texas Longhorn football team is very close to FA because the GA nomination was very thorough and also because it has had a Peer Review.  I have been hoping to give it another thorough pass and then FA nom this summer, but I've been off-wiki more than expected.  I may get to it in August, actually.  Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.  Johntex\talk 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need an FA 

message: I noticed that Jmfangio has been changing page titles today using American football such as renaming Calvin Johnson (football player) to Calvin Johnson (American football).  While I was a bit annoyed at first, I have to admit that after thinking about it, in the case of disambiguation, it does make a lot of sense to me to specify "American football" because even if there is no "soccer" player by that name, it would reduce confusion by those who see the disambiguation page to spell it out completely.  Also, I like dropping "player" out of the page title because often times a player goes on to do other things (such as coach) within the sport.  Anyway, I wanted to mention this here so it can be discussed, but personally, unless someone has a strong argument against it, I support this change.Gopherguy 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that for players, that's probably a better naming convention, particularly for the common names where there are plenty of soccer and football players with that name.  But there is one move that I just noticed that I think is more annoying than anything else.  Everything in :Category:American football positions has been moved to have (American football) after it.  I think that's a really bad idea.  Only football has quarterbacks, long snappers, etc.  Those pages don't need to be disambiguated and if this were any other topic area, it wouldn't even be an issue.  Do we rename United States of America to United States of America (country) I moved running back back to the correct article name before I realized how widespread this was.  After I saw that the entire category was moved, I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football to find out whether there is actually a reason for the move. --B 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that he made the change to support an assumption of that format in his . His solution to a particular template feature required that all positions that would be used in that templates position field be formatted that way. AUTiger » talk 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ... I read and replied to the discussion there.  This is NOT an acceptable solution.  We disambiguate because we have no other choice, not because it's convenient for a template.  Either the template can link to a redirect page, users of the template can type four brackets, or the template can use parser functions for the 3 or 4 positions that actually are ambiguous.  Renaming 30 articles for this is not acceptable. --B 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I support that change. 100% correct in my book. But changing school names to American football is ridiculous. Having, for instance, "Oklahoma Sooners American football" is a bad idea. Obviously, if you see that it is a team in Oklahoma, the American part is assumed. Just like we call our soccer team the United States men's national soccer team and not the United States men's national football team. With United States in the article title, having soccer is ok because we can assume what it means. Same thing for having Oklahoma or Michigan or any US State in the article title, American football is assumed.↔NMajdan•talk 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was about to bring up that team as well.  I think :Category:North_American_national_football_teams is particularly telling, showing the varying usage in the article name per the country-specific common-usage.  See also :Category:European_national_football_teams where XXX national football team is not disambiguated when there could in fact be confusion since there is an International Federation of American Football and IFAF World Cup. Suppose an American wanted to find out about the defending IFAF World Cup champ Japan and typed in Japan national football team? They'd end up reading about an association football team! (not obviously dabbed in the lede, btw) Oh, the HORRORS!! Someone should run over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and straighten them out. AUTiger » talk 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the person format when needed as well. AUTiger » talk 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm not sure why you insist on making off-color remarks.  The position change referenced earlier was not done to solve a "problem" with a template.  So please don't make assumptions on my actions.  As per the rest of the stuff, I'm going to stay out of this until you people can discuss things without making personally motivated points. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing personal against you, I am just responding to your actions. Are we to assume that you making a series of over 20 moves starting with Center and ending with Placekicker followed immediately by an edit to embed (American football) in the  template and finally a declaration that position "now works" was all just a coincidence? AUTiger » talk 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Your recent edit summary was completely uncalled for.  And yes, your assumption is incorrect.  The decision to move the articles did not allow me to hard code the template.  The hard coding was done however to reflect those changes. I really don't see any reason to discuss anything else with you until you stop making agitating comments toward me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Wade Wilson (football) related to this issue after a move request was brought to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem using (American football) to disambig a player. Looking at a name, there is no way to tell if the player is an American football player or a football/soccer player. However, when it comes to schools, I am against using American football. The name of the US State is in the title so the American football is assumed.↔NMajdan•talk 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every college or university with a football team is a public institution or a "University of <state>."  --ElKevbo 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another issue with "American football"