Talk:Ohio high school athletic conferences

message: I've proposed a standard form for naming articles on Ohio school districts:  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ohio school districts), which could easily be extended to apply to districts in other states.  I'd welcome some feedback on this.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: I don't see the City Series and Steel Valley Conference, both from Youngstown. --Daysleeper47 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this all of them? 

message: This page is huge as it is, should the defunct conferences have their own page for the sake of keeping this thing under control, keeping this relegated to what exists at the present time? TravisS1227 (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Defunct Conferences 

message: Do we need them? Do we really care? TravisS1227 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Members 

message: I've been adding conferences on here the past few months, and I have files on many more conferences that have existed in the past, that I am adding slowly but surely. I am also researching into more past conferences, with varying degrees of success. I am also working on a file that traces all of the current and former schools in the state, and the leagues they participated in. If there's a conference that you feel should be on here, or if you have evidence that information on here is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page. I may either already have information on the league, or need to update my notes to correct the info I have. Mtndrums (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern is that this list is already very large and will be even larger if we include every past conference that has ever existed and every past member of every conference. Even the table of contents, which is designed to help readers navigate easier, is so long that it takes quite a bit of scrolling just to find a particular name. Imagine how much longer it will be if we add past conferences to the list. The reality is that most conferences can have an article on their own (many already do) and this list should be for the current conferences, not an extensive history of every athletic conference in the state. Perhaps we need another list for past conferences and consensus on how to present all the information we have here (like do we only include current members as opposed to listing "future" members and past members?). Another option would be to make this an actual article about Ohio high school athletic conferences (some general structure and history) and then create list articles like List of current Ohio high school athletic conferences and List of defunct Ohio high school athletic conferences or something along those lines like dividing it up by region. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the lists could probably be split into present and past conferences without too much trouble. The main problem with the current leagues format is that for the most part, the conferences don't have their own pages, so this is really the only place to get this info. Honestly, it might not hurt to look at the page setups for Indiana to steal some ideas to better organize the Ohio pages (I had been working on past conferences in Indiana, then ended up starting research for Ohio when I hit a wall with online info). I think that for leagues with their own pages (and that have the past member info), it wouldn't hurt to just display current members (and future members, mainly for the ease of cutting/pasting versus having to jumping into each page to look for changes). For past conferences, I think those are fine being on their own page, then having a link on the bottom of the current conferences page to the past conferences, that should help open things up a bit. Let me know what sounds good out of that, and what you would do differently. Mtndrums (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Always a good idea to look at other lists and incorporate good ideas, both in terms of the scope, but also in basic structure and organization. Looking at similar articles promotes consistency and easier navigation for readers, among other benefits. In looking at the Indiana lists, there are some good ideas there, but also some fairly excessive detail that could either be considered cruft or spun off into its own article (like the history of ever conference change from 1994 to the present). I also would divide the list up by state region (NE, NW, SE, SW, and Central) instead of alphabetically since conference changes could result in an alphabetical list needing to be renamed. Again, the real key here is making this list easier to navigate and better defining its scope, so if that means creating new lists to better organize the information, let's do it. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already split the pages into present and defunct pages, which has helped a bit, though it probably needs some more splitting to make it easy to navigate. What I'm thinking may end up being best is for the main page to have lists of conferences by region, then have the conference information on a regional page. If a conference has its own Wiki page, then it could also be linked on the main page as a secondary link. The main problem I'm coming up with is when conferences have members from more than one region. I think when there is only a couple of members, then the actual information should go on the regional page where most of the members lie, then add the links on the main page for the regions for the remaining conference schools. Where I'm having problems with is when members are more evenly split between regions, where the main info would go. Even if it turns out we don't have anything that would qualify under this right now, it probably wouldn't be bad to establish some guidelines in case the situation does arise in the future. I also plan on splitting the Defunct Conferences page in a similar fashion if this works for the current conferences page. Mtndrums (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Anyone is Paying Attention 

message: According to the Manual of Style, section headings should normally not contain links. I propose the links in the section headings of this article be removed and replaced with the "Main article" format, i.e.
Jb45424 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See also MOS:LINKSTYLE "Section headings should not themselves contain links; instead, a main article or see also template should be placed immediately after the heading".Jb45424 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: DoneJb45424 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings