Talk:2011 NCAA Division I FBS football season

Change name

whoever created this page misspelled division.Rhetto1025 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

More Re-alignment...

Just curious, where is any mention of the current re-alignment talks going on (ie: Texas A&M to the SEC; Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC; the Pac-12 possibly adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State adn Texas Tech? Or is that a separate article? Qazox (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• See 2010–11 NCAA conference realignment. OCNative (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Conference standings - 2 or 3 columns

I changed (a second time) the Conference standings format to use only 2 columns. The 3 columns style get too wide and forces me to scroll horizontally (usually a bad thing), and even for those with wider screens I presume that in order not to scroll, then the surrounding text will be too wide to be comfortable to read. I ask you to consider this before reverting to 3 columns (or eventually revert to 2 if someone else makes it 3 again) Thanks.- Nabla (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with this is that all of the NCAA Division I FBS football season pages are three columns. If you change one page you should change them all. I've never heard this problem from anyone else before on here so I don't think we should change the way things have been done on the NCAA Division I FBS football season pages for one person having a problem with their screen not being wide enough. If everyone were to edit wikipedia to the way they wanted it to fit there own needs then it would be chaos and nothing would ever be consistent. When I created this page back in December of last year I created it based on the previous years pages and I think we should continue to do it three columns until there is more than just one person complaining about it not fitting their desired preferences. When I go onto the non-mobile site on my iPhone I too have to scroll over to see the two columns does that mean we should change it to one column...no. Please leave it in the three column wide arrangement, so we can maintain a consistency across the whole wikipedia college football landscape. Thank You - libalaustin1990 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to fit it to my own needs (only). I argued that maybe there are more people with the same problem. Note that there was (also) only one editor defending the 3 column lay-out. You. I changed it back to 2 columns, could you let someone else revert? - Nabla (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not me vs. you, I'm just trying to stay consistent with what has been done for some time. I understand where you are coming from but when you originally edited the page you did so without any previous edits on the page and did so without any discussion on the matter at all. The first time I thought it was just someone coming in to change it without any good reason. The second time I changed it back and left a response on why I thought it should be three columns. I'm not trying to upset you or anything I was just trying to prove a point about how none of the other previous pages like this have ever received this problem so I interpreted it as a strange one-time occurrence. I have looked at your history on Wikipedia and it is very impressive so I'm not trying to undermine you or your knowledge of this website. I have placed this on the third opinion page in hopes that a third party can come to a decision on what should be done here and will leave it in the two column format so that we don't just keep reverting each others edits. Thanks for you understanding - libalaustin1990 (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think having 3 columns is best for this article (along with all of the previous years). I dont have an extra large monitor and have never had to scroll horizontally. Now with only 2 columns, I have half a page of blank white space. It does not look good at all. Rocketmaniac ^RT 12:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this ok with you Nabla? or do you want to wait on some more opinions on the matter? Thanks for you input Rocketmaniac. Libalaustin1990 (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As much as you don't owning a 3 column version, I also don't own a 2 column one. I will continue to think that the text gets too wide with 3 (non-scrolling) columns. That precedent dates from centuries (see most books, magazines, newspappers, ...  :-). But I calmly admit that for now there is the page precedent plus 2 editors against one (mine) opinion. So change it, at will (I do not understand the rush everyone has in WP, discussion must end within minutes... or drag for years... but well, that is well beyond the scope here) - Nabla (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not rushing to revert the article. It's only early morning (Im currently in Utah.. Mountain Time). Today is a big day in College Football, last regular season games for a lot of teams. Others will be logging on in the next few hours. I mean it's not as though anyone will miss or over-look the change to 2 columns. Rocketmaniac ^RT 14:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You are precisely showing what rushing is. You are concerned about the hour of the day and if people will log in in a couple of hours. This is an encyclopaedia, now and today is not that important, the next years are. And actually most users will not see the alternate layout because you revert it in a rush. - Nabla (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nabla, please notice who reverted the article. I support the 3 columns, but did not revert it. My comment about waiting a few hours was to get other opinions. You appear to have taken this discussion personally, adding "whatever" when you replied to Libalaustin1990 earlier.Rocketmaniac ^RT 14:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my appologies, I misunderstood you. The rush argument should go - and goes - to Libalaustin1990, apparently he owns the article so much that he reverts back and forth as he pleases. "Whataver" means, that he (all) can do whatever he wants. I am not going to engage in a edit war because of 2/3 columns formating. Nor in any further discussion. Surely not worth it. That is... they can do whatever they want, I simply feel silly for even bothering to try and improve. WP is ever increasingly aggressive. It is not worth it. - Nabla (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814154433/http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/051010aae.html to http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/051010aae.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)