Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jan2008

message: In order to clarify everyone's position, please state your support or opposition to the following statement:
::::The phrase "competes in" may be used when describing a football team's conference affiliation
====Support====
* — BQZip01 — talk
* JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: * — BQZip01 — talk
* JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: I have warned Baseball Bugs that he is being destructive, that future such behavior could result in blocking, and that if he wishes to continue the matter that the proper venue should be RfC.  Johntex\talk 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been through an RfC and at least two outsiders have sided with the majority.↔NMajdan•talk 17:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, I should have realized that is where the outside comments came from.  Johntex\talk 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball Bugs warned

message: I've been going through and adding WP:CFB tags to the talk pages of college football articles that need them, and I've run across a few college mascot pages that aren't part of the Wikiproject. That brings up an interesting argument -- should mascots be included in this Wikiproject? 
My initial thought is no. After all, they're not specific to football alone, and represent the entire athletic department and school, not just the football team. But we've also got two in our list of high-rank college football articles. So I ask you all -- should mascots be included in this wikiproject? JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have a link to the previous discussion? JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the very first archive of this page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jun2006 and there is a mention there.  Also, back in August 2006 we created Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team Articles.  That page is a handy reference to what teams are still missing football articles.  There is also a column for mascots and football stadiums. Johntex\talk 06:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascots 

message: Why is the portal asking for an image for 2007/1? It should be looking for 2008/1, which already exists. Can someone fix this? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.↔NMajdan•talk 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected Image on Portal 

message: I just noticed that all the base team pages have the "®" automatically added to the end of the image.  While most schools have registered their trademarks, there's always a possibility that a school might be ™ for whatever reason (especially if its new).  I just tend to lean away from blanketing, sight unseen, any and every image with the "®".  As a lawyer, I wouldn't do it unless I knew it was certain. --Bobak (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. What is your main concern here as a lawyer? That Wikipedia will be sued for declaring an official logo as being a registered trademark? Or that the logo may be unofficial? So far as the first issue goes, I doubt that would happen. On the second, from my experience over the past few years of editing on WP, there are enough editors on here to police falsehoods or spoofs that I doubt very highly that anything left to stand for a few weeks would be anything less than an officially recognized logo. I'm not a lawyer -- not that one's profession should be a basis for anyone's credibility as an editor -- but it would seem reasonable (as well as consistent) with today's culture of brand marketing (not to mention our societal tendencies towards hyper-litigation)that a logo would not be used by an entity the size of a college or university unless it was trademarked. I doubt highly that a commonly recognized logo for any team would not be trademarked. An assumption, yes, but in this case I'd say it's likely a safe assumption. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bobak.  We are here to inform and to be as accurate as possible.  We should not be making blanket alterations of these images under an assumption that they are all reserved trademarks.  Does anyone know if any rational was provided before this change, or how the change was carried out? Johntex\talk 06:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep ... we definitely shouldn't be adding the R when we have no idea what the logo's trademark status is.  Also, even if we did, a good number of them have the R built into the logo itself, so our addition of the R is merely an unsightly addition.  And even if we know it is registered and the image doesn't have it built in, we are under no obligation to put it there so it doesn't really help anything. --B (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming too much with the automatic "®" on team pages? 

message: Ok, I'm confused. Yesterday, when I left, we had slightly over 4400 articles in this project. I get here today and we have nearly 9400? Where did these 5000 articles come from? I requested a both go through a list of 2000 articles and tag any that were not part of the project but a) I don't know if that was done yet and b) I was expecting maybe 20% of those 2000 to not be tagged. Does anybody have any clue where these 5000 came from?↔NMajdan•talk 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that a LOT of the LSU articles on my watchlist were tagged last night by User:BetacommandBot.  I'm guessing this happened to a lot of other teams articles as well. Seancp (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I assume you mean a "bot". This much I can tell you - several names and stadiums I'm watching were all tagged by BetacommandBot between 06:48 and 07:06 today, UTC: Jackie Robinson‎, Jack Buck‎, Hayward Field‎, Harry Caray‎, Forbes Field, Exposition Park (Pittsburgh)‎. And they all have some connection to college football. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess as long as the articles tagged are connected to the project, then there isn't an issue. Which begs the question, how in the world did we have 5000 articles that should have belonged to our project that did not? Unfortunately, this kills our FA/GA/B-to-article count ratio. I did ask that BCBot go through the subcategories or :Category:College football and tag any untagged articles cause I was doing it with AWB and noticing a lot of untagged but I had no idea it would be this many.↔NMajdan•talk 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot isn't even finished tagging yet so there is more to come.↔NMajdan•talk 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, Betacommandbot is tagging every current NFL player (under the presumption that they played college football at some level, somewhere) with the college football project according to my watchlist of several NFL players.   Keeper  |  76 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just current; a lot of retired players on my watchlist are being tagged as well. Wizardman 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is partly my fault. I did ask that articles under the college football category be tagged. So, of course, that also went through :Category:College football players and all subdirectories. I guess, technically, these articles should be part of the project but maybe there was a reason they were not before.↔NMajdan•talk 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you look at a couple of the recently tagged sample pages, Talk:Ray Edwards, Talk:Aundrae Allison, Talk:Tarvaris Jackson (think maybe I'm a vikes fan?:-) you'll see that the first box is now for college football, then usually a BLP box, then NFL, and then Vikes.  Not sure if I like the order of it, or the confusion of belonging to so many groups. And I'm guessing that adding 5000 players (probably more) to your "to-do" list isn't exaclty appealing either.   Keeper  |  76 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats just how the bot works. It can't order them, so it just adds the banner to the top of the page.↔NMajdan•talk 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A bunch more showed up a little while ago.  Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot are probably showing up from my work creating small college coach stubs.  Lessie... I've done coaching histories for:
#Southwestern College
#Washburn University
#Wichita State University
#Northwest Missouri State University
#Eastern New Mexico University
#University of Texas at Arlington
#Emporia State University
#Malone College Athletics
#Saginaw Valley State University
#Southern Illinois Salukis
#Dickinson College
#Colgate University
#Frostburg State University
#Mount Ida College
#Lehigh Mountain Hawks
#Drake University
#Temple Owls football
#Lindenwood University
#Tabor College (Kansas)
#Bacone College
#Avila University
#Illinois State Redbirds
...I'm sure I'm missing some, plus I've completed several schools of coaches without pages for every coach (Kansas State, Kansas, Temple, etc).  At an average of 20 coaches per school, that works out to be about 440 new articles from my work in small colleges.  It's my fault!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge jump in article count 

message: Bill Stewart's page is brand new and could use some help.  With some great editing work I think it would be a perfect candidate for "Did you know...?" on the Main Wikipedia page.  I already added his entry to the "New College Football articles" on the main page.  Please help is you can.  Thanks! Seancp (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WVU Head Coach 

message: The page, Boston College Eagles football is in poor shape. I have been trying do make it better, but particular season's may help it, A Post of Each Season's Record, and a More In-Depth History. --IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boston College Eagles football]] 

message: OK, I've made this comment to others in the past. I don't get this "attempt" wording. If this is a project, then it has an objective. It shouldn't be worded so tentatively. It should say "this project's objective is..." Keep in mind the following credos:
:"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
:"There is no substitute for victory." -- Douglas MacArthur, also the motto of Red Blaik and his assistant coach at Army, Vince Lombardi
:"There is no 'try'. Do, or do not." -- Yoda
:Template:WikiProject College football
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor changes as well. Something a little less tentative. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Attempt"? 

message: I have noted on the pages that the Bowl Championship Series contracts are up in 2010. However the location templates of the [[BCS National Championship Game go on to 2018 on the pages of Louisiana Superdome, Dolphin Stadium, Rose Bowl, and University of Phoenix Stadium. With the possible addition of the Sugar Bowl being added to the rotation. Are those venues all confirmed for those years of the BCS. If they are not confirmed then they should be removed from those pages immediately.  Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing the links that you're talking about. Where on the pages are they? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He meant the overzealous addition of succession boxes on those articles. AUTiger » talk 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Yes, there were quite a few of those. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I assume you mean the Cotton Bowl and not the Sugar Bowl, which is played at the Superdome. Anyway, it wasn't an issue on the Superdome article and you could have just fixed it on the others as I just did. AUTiger » talk 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea that is what I ment Cotton Bowl Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS Stadium Templates trough 2018 

message: I've been working on 2008 Iowa Hawkeyes football team for awhile now, but I've come across a question that I think should be brought up here.  In the schedule, I linked the opposing teams to the university page, rather their respective 2008 season pages.  I did this for the sake of not being repetitive, as the 2008 season pages will be linked in the game notes (or in my case, the season) section.  I know I might be fretting about nothing, but I thought there should be at least some consensus in how I do this.
I was also wondering about the possibility of someone just going through the article just to give me things to improve on (such as NPOV issues) as we reach a "dead" period in college football.  I'd very much appreciate any outside input on this article; I've pretty much been the only one working on it.
Thanks in advance. CrdHwk (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest inserting the 2008 season pages. I don't think it's repetitive, and it's a more appropriate link. The university pages won't help a reader if (s)he's looking for college football information, and I think it's a good idea overall. In addition, I'd suggest creating a space for the Spring Game (if Iowa has one), since that's usually covered pretty well in major football markets. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JKBrooks, but I also have the following fall-backs if there isn't a 2008 season page available: If there isn't a season page, I move to the general football page (i.e. Duke Blue Devils football); if there isn't a football page I'd go to the general athletics page if available (i.e. Duke Blue Devils); if there's no separate athletic page, I'll to the general university page.  --Bobak (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. A lot of the smaller schools may not have separate season pages (Maine, FIU). JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those seem like good ideas.  I was going to add the spring game section in April when Iowa usually has one (it's more like a spring open practice, so I'm not sold on naming the section "Spring game" yet, but I'll figure it out).  If you had time to read it, what'd you think of the article so far?  Thanks for your suggestions. CrdHwk (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just use Template:Cfb link. But only when you need to. That is, if you know the season article exists, then use that link and not this template. Using this too many times on a page will cause errors and the page might not load correctly. This is because of an imposed limit on the number of times on of the functions can be used. The discussion about it may still be above. Otherwise it would be in the December archives. MECU≈talk 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just want to go on record as saying that I think including the Spring Game in the schedule on team pages is not a good idea.  It's not a real game and it does not count in the team's record.  All spring game info should be in the "Pre-Season" section of team articles, IMHO. Seancp (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I would have put the "Spring game" subsection in the "Leading up to the season" section.  It would probably go under the recruiting class subsection for my article, unless something especially noteworthy happens before that.  I like to keep everything in chronological order in the "Leading up to ..." section. CrdHwk (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I think the thing I like the most about the article is the use of things like the Wisconsin helmet to illustrate key points. I absolutely love illustrative photos like that, and need to try to use them more. They're an excellent way to express key points in brief form and attract the eye very well.JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that the link should go to the most precise link available.  It is easier for the reader to go "up" from the football team to the university if they want to read about the school than it is to travel "down" from the university to the football team or program.  I also think the spring game should not appear on the schedule but should appear in the "Leading up to the season" section.  Good article overall. Johntex\talk 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all the suggestions and comments. Good to know that my fanatical support for the Hawks has not leaked into the article. :) CrdHwk (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season article question 

message: So apparently, there were a lot of articles in the college football categories not tagged with our banner. I'm using AWB to go through and add them to the project but I'll have to go back and add ratings when I can. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Check out :Category:Unassessed college football articles for the list. Thanks.↔NMajdan•talk 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, where did all these new articles come from? I'm not even through the Bs and I've added over 200 articles to the project. If it is somebody on here that is creating a lot of these articles, I beg you, please add the WikiProject banner to the talk page and maybe even rate it. Also, if its a person, add it to WPBio as well.↔NMajdan•talk 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I was going through Virginia Tech articles not too long ago, and kept running across things that didn't have the project tag on them. I'll pitch in after I get home from work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confession--a lot of the coach articles are mine.  I've been going back through and adding the tag manually, but I'm very grateful for the bot that's been running.  It's been a big help!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured as much when I saw that a lot of them were from smaller schools. As I mentioned above, it would a great help if you could tag newly created articles with out banner () and for people, also add the Biography WikiProject Banner ().↔NMajdan•talk 14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, if you do help tag articles, please look for other issues. Including, whatever the outcome of the discussion below regarding our short article policy is, add articles about people to the Biography Wikiproject (), if the article has no references, add , and if the article is about a living person with no references, then add .↔NMajdan•talk 15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm running across quite a few articles that have assessments from other Wikiprojects but don't have one for ours... wasn't the bot supposed to correct that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have been, yes.↔NMajdan•talk 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, yes, the bot did run. Unless, of course, everyone on this project assessed 4,000 articles between January 3 and now. Unfortunately, we still have 6,400 to go.↔NMajdan•talk 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah! I was only seeing 9,400 articles on our assessment page... guess I should've checked the updated statistics. Wonder why it didn't catch a few, then. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, finished the 1s. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: E is done. I also added the capability to the tag to classify pages as "Redirects" and "Dab" (Disambiguation). MECU≈talk 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a bot request yesterday to assess as stub any article with a stub template but nobody has picked up the request yet.↔NMajdan•talk 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be really helpful if someone picks it up. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assisstance tagging articles 

message: Ok, some serious help is needed getting all our new articles tagged. The bot that assesses articles that already have an assessment from another project has ran, so all that is left is unassessed articles. Any help would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you do help tag articles, please look for other issues. Including, whatever the outcome of the discussion below regarding our short article policy is, add articles about people to the Biography Wikiproject (), if the article has no references, add , and if the article is about a living person with no references, then add .↔NMajdan•talk 15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm running across quite a few articles that have assessments from other Wikiprojects but don't have one for ours... wasn't the bot supposed to correct that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have been, yes.↔NMajdan•talk 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, yes, the bot did run. Unless, of course, everyone on this project assessed 4,000 articles between January 3 and now. Unfortunately, we still have 6,400 to go.↔NMajdan•talk 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah! I was only seeing 9,400 articles on our assessment page... guess I should've checked the updated statistics. Wonder why it didn't catch a few, then. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, finished the 1s. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: E is done. I also added the capability to the tag to classify pages as "Redirects" and "Dab" (Disambiguation). MECU≈talk 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a bot request yesterday to assess as stub any article with a stub template but nobody has picked up the request yet.↔NMajdan•talk 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be really helpful if someone picks it up. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed

message: I'd like to suggest that if anyone gives out our CFB barnstar award, that they publicize the fact here. This would help increase the benefit of getting such an award and we can all pile-on our thanks and see some more of the good works going on around the project. MECU≈talk 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I gave one to Paul McDonald not too long ago for all his work on the small college articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he has done a great job expanding Wikipedia's coverage on the oft-ignored part of college football.↔NMajdan•talk 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, shucks... thanks gang!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, Paul, I'm hoping you're remembering to tag your new articles with our banner.....It will save us a lot of work in the future.↔NMajdan•talk 15:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've been tagging, but it's tedious... hence my "request for bot" below...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFB award 

message: Hey gang, I have a request for a bot.  I've been doing lots of work on small college coaches and recently have found myself "filling in the blanks" for coaches that don't exist on major colleges.  Example, I just made stub articles for all the missing coach articles for Iowa State University.
Anyway, it takes some manual work to do that because sometimes the artilces exist and need to be merged--other times I just copy up my standard layout stub article.
What I'd like is a BOT that can run through a template (like Iowa State's  below) from my user page and hit every coach's talk page to put templates on the talk page


:Template:CyclonesCoach
Can anyone take that on??--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tackle this when I get time. You may also want to look into WP:AWB - its what I'll probably use to handle this. I think the guys at WP:BOTREQ are getting tired of me.↔NMajdan•talk 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, AWB seems to be having some issues.↔NMajdan•talk 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Bot 

message: There has been some well-intentioned confusion over the naming conventions of the USC Trojans.  Right now the college player infobox will only show the Trojans' colors if the "|school=" line reads "Southern California Trojans", a combination that's never used.  Can we switch this to work with "USC Trojans" or simply "Southern California"?  I can't figure out how that infobox works.  I noticed this issue when working on Chilo Rachal, see this edit. --Bobak (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick!  Thanks. --Bobak (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ? Where did that template come from? Most athletes I've seen use  which, in my opinion, looks more professional.↔NMajdan•talk 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  College player infobox / color help 

message: I've recently come across some lists such as Green Bay Packers seasons and Chicago Bears seasons, and thought it would be a good idea to start one for my Hawkeyes.  Well, I've gotten a decent start on it, but I can't figure out how to un-bold everything in the template.  You can view the page here, and the template is just a quick scroll down.  I've compared templates with the other pages but I can't find anything different about them.  I would like to have just conference championships bolded with everything else in regular text.  Any help is appreciated.  If you know what's wrong and it won't take too long, go ahead and edit it.  I wish I was more skilled in this department, because I actually just copied-and-pasted from the Packers article to get a start on it.  Thanks in advance for any help. CrdHwk (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use exclamation points; that adds the bold and should typically only be used for header rows. Also, its not a template, just an article (list). Looks good though. I may have to duplicate it for Oklahoma. Look what I did to year 1900 to see how to fix.↔NMajdan•talk 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see what you did.  Thanks. I agree, an list like this could be useful for most college football teams.  I checked out the NFL ones and it did not look too hard to get these up to featured level.  Hopefully I can get the Iowa one up to that level.  Thanks again for your help. CrdHwk (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what Template:CFB Yearly Record Start takes care of? MECU≈talk 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: New comment -- I'm seriously considering nominating Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons to be a featured list.  Check it out and tell me what you think.  It would be great to get this up to featured status, and it could also set a precedent for similar college football lists.   CrdHwk (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the general concept, just curious if you tried the CFB Yearly Record template system that Mecu mentioned? AUTiger » talk 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have not tried the other template.  However, NFL lists using a similar format have all proven to be up to featured list standards.  I'm actually getting a bit tired of working on the same thing for so long, I think I'm more than ready to see how it fairs as a FL candidate. CrdHwk (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another new comment – I have nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates.  I am by no means asking for support votes just because you're college football fans and you would like to see more featured pages within our WikiProject.  I am, however, asking for your participation in this nomination.  I would like to get this up to featured status, but I am also willing to make improvements if it is not up to par yet.  Once again (and I cannot say this enough), thanks in advance for any and all help. CrdHwk (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template question 

message: I have created two sample articles for early College Football All-America Teams.  They are:
* 1925 College Football All-America Team
* 1931 College Football All-America Team
Before rolling out further into other years, I would be interested in any feedback that folks here might have.Cbl62 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like those a lot. I'm so relieved there is actually prose content as opposed to a straight list. But, All-America Team or All-American Team?↔NMajdan•talk 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have gone with "All-American" team, but the convention seems to have developed to go with All-America team. See 2006 College Football All-America Team, 2007 College Football All-America Team and College Football All-America Team. Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea and how they're done.  It also offers up some players that might warrant articles. --Bobak (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is All-America team. The only time you add the n is when you are talking about a single person as a member of the team: He is an All-American. He was selected to the All-America team. Both sentences are correct. MECU≈talk 13:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Should a navigational template be made with links to every years All-America team article?  Kind of like the individual team season template....? Seancp (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Football All-America Teams 

message: I've nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons for featured list status.  Please, if you have any time at all, I ask that you participate in the discussion here.  Any and all votes/opinions are greatly appreciated.  Thank you. CrdHwk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It's a very good list. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments JKBrooks.  I still need at least 2 more support votes to pass, so please, any comments or votes are appreciated, and this goes to all college football fans.  I'll try improving the list on JK's suggestions.  Thanks.  CrdHwk (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for participation 

message: Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD.  This is a candidate whose debate will significantly affect WikiProject College Football.  Please participate in the debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal if possible.  Thanks. --Thör hammer 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this one could get sticky. Incidentally, do we have a general article about NCAA college football recruiting violations or anything along those lines? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of one. I think we generally have included the content in the relevant individual team articles, like Oklahoma Sooners football. (Search for "violations") MECU≈talk 13:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Are we really so far removed from the end of the USSR that people don't understand the doctrine of Mutual assured destruction any more? Thanks to all the long-standing WP:CFB members who avoided opening Pandora's box. Hopefully, everyone will continue to keep their fingers off the button. AUTiger » talk 04:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem in this case is that the Clemson and USC-east fans are going at it.  For the most part, we've done the impossible here - Longhorns and Sooners, Wahoos and Hokies, Buffaloes and ... whoever you guys don't like - all getting along.  But the USC-Clemson fighting is getting to be a disruption.  There's nothing inherently wrong with articles about NCAA sanctions.  But there is something wrong with opposing fans creating WP:COATRACKs about each others' schools.  If these guys can't behave (and it's clear they can't), the reset button needs to be hit on their nonsense - stub it or redirect it and start over. --B (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I reviewed a good bit (as much as I could stand) of the history of this conflict and completely agree (see my comments at the AfD nom); it is amusing (and amazing) that this hasn't happened (beyond the standard anon vandalism) over some of the proclaimed "most bitter" rivalries. Kudos again to everyone keeping to the higher road. AUTiger » talk 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over Article for Deletion: Clemson University football recruiting scandal 

message: I have noticed that User:192.60.230.113 has been adding depth charts for 2008 to school football articles.  This would purely be speculation and would not be allowed, after all, this is an encyclopedia.  I have been reverting them, but stopped for a minute to see if there was any discussion on this project about that, which I see there is not.  Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I do not believe that these depth charts should be listed.  Some of these players may not be in school next season due to either going into the draft or academic reasons.  Also, this user has been listing projected incoming players which is definately speculation until after National signing day.  --Pparazorback (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%. Even the coaches couldn't tell you the depth chart for next season.↔NMajdan•talk 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. About the only way you'd be able to work that information in is if someone wrote an article or series of articles about the expected depth chart based on the end of the previous (this) season. Even then, it'd only be worth a few sentences. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also - the depth chart requires too much guesswork about who will win or keep starting positions.  However, I would have no problem with an early roster if it sticks to returning players.  Sure, some players may change position, be kicked off, etc, but it would be mostly correct and based on sourceable info from the prior season. Johntex\talk 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would still violate WP:CRYSTAL.  This user appears to have registered a username as the depth charts are reappearing. Please keep an eye out for Special:Contributions/Mvaughan99 who has been recreating these charts.  If this were a fan site, fine add the information, but this is an encyclopedia.  The charts are pure speculation.  --Pparazorback (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 depth charts 

message: There seems to be a problem with the Wikiproject College football banner on the talk page for Fifth Down Game (1990). It's in the code, and it appears as if the syntax is correct, but Wikipedia isn't detecting the banner. It doesn't show up in the list of GA-class college football articles, and it doesn't show up when you expand the Wikiproject shell. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that was weird. Should be fixed now.↔NMajdan•talk 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth Down Game (1990) 

message: Could anyone help me expand the Brandon Saine article? If so, if you find anything about him that could go in, feel free to put it in his article (w/ ref.). Thanks. Burner0718 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it! Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! :-) Burner0718 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might consider (if you are finding it hard to find source material) whether he is sufficiently notable to have an article right now. It's the rare true freshman (full-time starter, award winner, record breaker) who really meets the criteria. AUTiger » talk 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking for a good source, I'd highly suggest looking at the Ohio State media guide and/or official athletics page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's better (required for notability) to find reliable secondary sources. AUTiger » talk 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. Most College Football articles, however, including many/most of the FA/GAs, rely upon primary sources for the simple reason that there aren't any secondary sources or because the event is too recent. With the number of CFB edits you've got, I'm sure you've had to rely on primary sources as well. They're not my first choice, but there's really no other option in most new CFB articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found some stuff by googleing his name. I found the stats at Rivals.com. Burner0718 (Jibba Jabba) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandon Saine 

message: FYI to anyone interested, I have created a list of every page that transcludes  or .  You can view the list at User:B/NCAA data.  At the top is a list of article links so that you can use related changes to monitor vandalism and at the bottom is a raw list that you can copy/paste into your watchlist.  If you are interested in monitoring college football player articles for libel, this isn't a complete list, but it's a useful start. --B (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an infobox for notable college football players who go pro in something other than their sport?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlisting NCAA athletes 

message: We've got quite a few articles/lists up for featured reviews right now, and support is requested to get these articles and lists to featured status.
For lists, there's the list of Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons. 
For articles, there's a few.
*2008 Orange Bowl
*2007 ACC Championship Game
In addition, 2007 Hawaii Bowl was recently up for review, but failed its first featured article candidacy. I'd encourage everyone to visit these articles' candidacy pages and offer comments or support. Several of the editors of 2007 Hawaii Bowl have requested assistance before they put it up for a second round of FAC. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for the mention JK.  For those who do not know already, the FLC for Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons is set to expire in less than two days, and it needs only one more support vote to pass.  Get out there and express your opinion should you have an extra five minutes! CrdHwk (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Featured Content 

message: While debating at the current Thomas Wilcher AFD, there has been some discussion of setting a standard for notability to lessen the number of articles that need to be debated case-by-case at AFD.  The most recent comments can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29#Amateur_athletes.  Is there any interest in setting some standards to lessen case-by-case issues.  I bring this to the fore now because although, I think the numerous active Michigan Football editors can save all interesting articles for their program, I am not so sure that all schools could do so in the face of a frenzy of AFD conservatives.  Among the points I make at the link I sent you to is the following:
#All first-team All-Americans should be kept regardless of article development and notability unless the article is misleading or malicious.
#All first team All-Conference player articles (for BCS conferences at least) should be kept until their class has gone pro.
#Some consensus should be reached on a standard University template.
Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also submit that receipients of a position award, such as the Lou Groza Award, etc., are automatically notable (though they'd probably be covered by the All-American category.) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability, though it's not official but can provide some help. MECU≈talk 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the page is inactive and the player policy points to the general policy that will revert us to a case by case assessment, but it may have to suffice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized notability criteria 

message: All American Football League is starting up. Since most (all?) of the players will be college players (since they must have a degree), should this be a part of WP:CFB? My thought is no, since there could be former NFL players as well, and really it should perhaps have their own WikiProject. I'd be fine with supporting them in starting up, but since they are a professional (think minor, AAA) league, they have more in common with the NFL than CFB. At the least, information about players and coaches involved could certainly be used incorporated into articles. MECU≈talk 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. First I've heard of it. But, I agree with you. This has more in common with NFL/Arena than CFB. The players will be apart of our project since they must have a degree to play in the league and will more than likely have played college ball. But, articles related to the league should not be added.↔NMajdan•talk 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything this will make arguments for notability stronger, and more of our player articles "keeps." Seancp (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've heard of the leauge several years ago.  Hope it makes it.  Heck, hope it starts.  We should keep our eyes on it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All American Football League]]