Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Naming conventions

message: So what do we do about articles that do not comply with our decision? I am referring to the following templates and the articles it links: . All they have is the schedule, an infobox, and a brief 3-4 sentence summary. I posted a comment to the user's talk page and referred him here.--NMajdan•talk 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello all, I am the one that created  and the handful of related articles.  I got the idea from  and  and the articles that had been started relative to those two templates.  Even though I had only completed 8 articles before being directed here, I was already feeling overwhelmed by the prospect of ceating articles for each year for the Bulldogs.  Now that I have read the discussion and the consensus view, I have to say that I am a little relieved.  As I understand it, the idea is to group seasons under the head coach, but I cannot tell if a naming format has been settled upon.  Additionally, in some cases, single season articles may still be appropriate.  With that in mind, would 1927 Georgia Bulldogs football team be an example of an appropriate single season article (assuming expansion). 1927 is the first season in which Georgia could stake a claim to the national title.--Tlmclain  | Talk 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. It would be <School><Nickname> football under <coach>, or Georgia Bulldogs football under Pop Warner. I believe the LSU template you are referring to may have been the one that sparked the discussion. As far as the 1927 article being appropriate, I leave that to your discretion. If you feel you have provide a detailed article pertaining to the 1927 team, complete with analysis of the season and possibly game summaries, then go for it. Take a look at some of the better articles that are for current seasons to get an idea what we're going for. 2005 Texas Longhorn football team is a good article candidate, for instance. Also, I took a look at your article in your sandbox and thats a start. I know its hard writing an article about a team from 80+ years ago but I think the more information you can include the better. One thing that would be easy to add would be information on players on those teams. Any All-Americans or national award winners? Any record breakers? Also, any significant matchups? But the format itself is a start.--NMajdan•talk 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help and comments.  At this point, I have corrected the articles for the 1892 - 1896 Georgia Bulldogs football teams by creating Georgia Bulldogs football under Charles Herty, Georgia Bulldogs football under Ernest Brown, Georgia Bulldogs football under Robert Winston and Georgia Bulldogs football under Pop Warner and making related edits to templates, etc.  Although I haven't made a final decision, I will likely merge 1920 Georgia Bulldogs football team into a to-be-created Georgia Bulldogs football under Herman Stegeman and 1927 Georgia Bulldogs football team a to-be-created Georgia Bulldogs football under Kid Woodruff. --Tlmclain  | Talk 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Compliance? 

message: What should we do about pages that do not conform to the various criteria that have been agreed upon?  Take a look at LSU Tigers football, 1893-1899.  This page is at odds with two "policies" that have been created to standardize pages.  First, it does not follow the format for grouping seasons under a coach's name - i.e., <School><Nickname> football under <coach>.  Second, it does not use , , and  to create the schedules.  To me, there is nothing inherently wrong with grouping seasons by years instead of by coaches so long as we don't have bunches of single seasons.  However, I don't know how much standardization others think is important in this area.  As to the use of the schedule templates on season pages, uniformity seems to be a little more important with schedules.  On the other hand, I don't want to be too bureaucratic.  What do others think?--Tlmclain  | Talk 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if memory serves, it was this page (and the others) that sparked the conversation then ended with the decision to create the <School><Nickname> football under <coach> format. Unfortunately, as it is my understanding, we are just a community of like-minded contributors. We do not 'own' any of the actual articles. Feel free to be bold and make whatever changes you feel should be make. The original author should assume good faith in your edits. Or you can go to the article's talk page or the primary contributor's talk page and voice your opinions there. Regarding the schedule templates, those are still fairly new so the majority of articles are not using it. I do hope that during the offseason, we can go back and convert them but I definitely hope the template will become the standard as the next season's articles develop. We decided to group by coach since it was more logical, especially for coaches who coached a long time. If a school had a string of 1 or 2 year coaches, then I could see grouping those into one article. I'll use the Georgia articles since those are your primary focus. Basically until 1909, most coaches were only there one or two years. I would have no problem grouping those by coach or by decade; it would be author's preference. However, with W. A. Cunningham, who coached from 1910 to 1919, I believe that would be best under the decided format. Same for Harry Mehre, Wally Butts, and so forth.--NMajdan•talk 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with NMajdan, common sense should override our guideline, which we could probably put on it's own subpage, copy the discussion to the talk page of that and tag it as a guideline? As NMajdan said, having "LSU Tigers football under Albert P. Simmons" would likely be a very short article and never have much information. Combining it with surrounding years by decade or other short term coaches if perfectly okay. However, "Notre Dame football under Tyrone Willingham", although only 3 years, shouldn't included with the previous or following coach since there is likely enough information to make a featured article about that topic. I would think it's going to be fairly common that early on for schools we will group by several coaches by decade or other reasonable time groupings as most schools suffer the same problems (some didn't, so it can't be a blanket statement). Even still, some articles, like "Penn State Nittany Lions under Joe Paterno" could be split into several articles, as his 40 year career would be too long for one article, Splitting by time periods that make sense may be appropriate there. Does anyone object to my posting the results of the previous discussion into a page and tagging it as a guideline and moving the discussion to the talk page? --MECU≈talk 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here.--NMajdan•talk 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine by me, although you may want to shorten it some.  Another idea would be to standardize a tag for the talk page of articles that need work.  What I posted here may be a good start.--Tlmclain  | Talk 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted this about weeks ago and not received any comments.  I'd like to hear your comments please.I may be a little late in discussing this issue but I feel its important so I'll make my voice heard.  I am against the idea of creating articles like "SCLSU Mud Dogs under Coach Klein."  I think that it should be organized by decade, except for the current decade and except for exceptional seasons (i.e. national championships).  For example, I think its perfectly fine right now to have a season page for a team for each season in the 2000's, however, once 2010 rolls around, I think we should condense that into one main article, such as "SCLSU Football, 2000-2009".  For teams that won a national championship in the 2000's, keep the single season page and link to it from the condensed "decade" page.  I think it would be a travesty to lose all of the information in the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team for a condensed version either organized by decade or by coach.  As for the early seasons (1900's) that have been called into question:  Having them organized by coach would make a mess.  I contribute mostly to LSU stuff and I know that in LSU's early history they rarely had a coach for more than 3 years, often having a coach for only one year.  So instead of 1 article focusing on 10 years, we have 7 articles with different coach's to cover that schools 10 year stretch.  I know that a UGA contributor had problems with that already.  I know it was argued that organizing season by coach would help to document the coach, but shouldn't that be done on the coach's bio page?  Thanks.  Seancp 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean, we'd always conceded that it's appopriate to have individual articles for recent (and historic) single seasons for full treatment of those subjects/events. Clearly the 2005 Texas article (being a BCS Championship team) would never need to be removed. Historically, any undefeated or champsionship team's season is a ready candidate for a dedicated article. One big benefit of history pages like UWiki Researchers under Jimmy Wales is that it prevents redundant information (similar to relational db theory in computer science) because the article is the intersection of two sets of information.  Clearly both the coach and the football team articles want to cover this information - this allows a clean way to keep the full treatment of that period in one location (eliminating redundancy and easing maintenance) with short summaries in and links from the other two articles. It's harder to do that with decade structure that is arbitrary based on a time period that doesn't relate nearly as strongly to the ups and downs of a football team's fortunes as coaching changes. I sympathize with the short-term coach issues (Auburn's early history is just like LSU and UGA's) but we can treat that as an exception and handling it outside the guidelines. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you read the above, this should be treated as a guideline. If you think that having "XZYZ under Bob Jones" who was a coach for one year isn't appropriate then don't do it. Group it with another coach before or after it. The problem with grouping by years it's it's too arbitrary. Programs change drastically under a coach and many coaches start or end the year before or after, so it really doesn't solve the problem. As for condensing, I am, and I believe most others here are too, strongly against that. We had a little discussion about this before and it was decided that even (for example) the 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team page should be kept because it has good information and if folks were worried about it getting deleted afterwards, they wouldn't start it to begin with and likely wouldn't have such as good page in the end. If the 2006 Colorado page got deleted now, why would I start the 2007 page? What happens if they win the Big 12 or a NC  (crazier things have happened)? The resulting page wouldn't be as good as if we had started at the beginning and we may turn away editors. You can see the previous discussion at  which was overwhelmingly keep all. --MECU≈talk 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compliance Question