Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Mar2008

Future schedules as article?

I just discovered Georgia Bulldogs football team (future Schedules). I know that schedules are published for years into the future, I'm not certain there's a place for Wikipedia for this though. While not a crystal ball (though it does include some wishy-washy terms like "presumably"), is there really enough external discussion to justify such an article? There are articles published in papers that are like "Colorado signs home and home with X fo 2014 and 2016." Thinking of my beloved Colorado Buffs, their schedule with exact dates (but not time) and locations (home/away) is published and nearly complete through 2015-16 (a few TBA's exist). If someone wanted to, they could use the CFB schedule template and flesh out most of the data and be that much further ahead. Anyways, anyone else have any ideas if we should keep or support or squash such articles? (The S in Schedules should be lower case, if anyone jumps in and makes their own article.) Require CFB template use? MECU≈talk 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to delete the article referenced, however, I would never take it on myself to make articles like that. Seancp (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think this is a violation of WP:BALL. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question we need to address when it comes to schedules is, how far out can we go before its WP:BALL. I believe the next season is fine, like 2008 Texas Longhorns football team. But no further, because we can only assume it will happen. PGPirate 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's published on the school's official website then that's not WP:BALL. Just because the info might change doesn't mean it will. Seancp (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, nevermind, I was wrong. I just saw that WP:BALL says to avoid sports team schedules. Seancp (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I wasn't wrong. WP:BALL states: "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." Therefore this article does not violate WP:BALL, but it still is kind of unnecessary. Seancp (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It also says "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." But the question is, how far out is appropriate or encyclopedic? How many seasons? 1, 5 10, as long as it is verified? We should debate this some more and come to an consensus. PGPirate 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:BALL supports this article. The information can be verified by several sources and use references. It's fairly certain it will all happen per the contracts they sign; that is, rarely do the teams change who they are going to play (poor Hawaii). My thought is that this should be considered a sub article to the general team article. That is, Colorado Buffaloes football has recent results (since 2000) where then it could have a link to Colorado Buffaloes football (future schedule), and then the history in Colorado Buffaloes football year-by-year results (different name possible, perhaps we should standardize this name as well?). But again, this could be optional and we don't have to run out and make all these right away. But having future schedules would help and reduce the work at the time of generating the current season article. Of course, the NCAA Division I FBS season and team season articles should only exist for the current year or next year after a season. MECU≈talk 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I support creating these as far into the future as can be supported by references. Readers come to Wikipedia and read these articles to learn about the teams. Presumably that includes their future schedules and how they are evolving over time.

For instance, just last week there was some news about Arkansas wanting to drop a game with Texas that was planned for 2009.[1] If those teams had 2009 pages that would be a logical place for this information. Johntex\^talk 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I jumped in with both feet. My only question is should it be "Name Mascot football (future schedule)" or "Name Mascot football (future schedules)" (the S in schedule/s). It's the schedule, but there is a schedule for each season so I don't know. I did Colorado without the S and moved Georgia with the S since it was already there. Any thoughts? MECU≈talk 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also fine with them, since scheduling can be supported by sources (usually the official athletic website) and could act as a spot to hold information (as JohnTex noted) about how a non-conference game was scheduled/rescheduled/canceled or how a conference game was moved for whatever reason --the information could then be moved to the current season page as they mature. I've seen spots where that could come up. As long as the articles are updated to the news and information, I don't feel that they violate the Crystal Ball issue. --Bobak (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• To Mecu's questions, I think "Future schedules" with the "s" is better. However, I think it may be more straight-forward to just create the season article. If I create 2009 Texas Longhorn football team it can include what is known about the schedule as well as other topics, such as recruiting (verbal commitments are already being announced), planned stadium upgrades, etc. All of this can be sourced so there should be not problem with "crystal ball" issues. Johntex\^talk 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with creating the 2009+ (more than 1 year out) articles is that we decided previously that we shouldn't create such things, like the 2009 DI FBS season article, and future NC game articles, and future bowl articles, so logically it fits that we don't make future season articles, when at most, they shall likely only have a schedule anyways. Perhaps there is recruiting information for some teams (the big ones, USC, Texas, etc), but for 95% of teams this won't be true, and it certainly isn't true for season articles more than two years ahead (so for 2010+ currently, there isn't going to be any recruiting information). What else would there be on there aside from schedule? MECU≈talk 20:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Did we discuss it before? I don't recall that. I don't know, maybe we should discuss it again. It seems like a short time ago season articles themselves were unusual and even somewhat controversial. Now they are created for 25+ teams each season. We know we will have a 2009 article on USC and Texas and Colorado, so maybe it does no harm to create the article and put in what is referencable. If insufficient info exists, them combining them into a "future schedules" article would make sense. Johntex\^talk 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The unmaintainability of it scares me off a bit. Schedules change constantly. For this year (2008), we had games scheduled with Kent State, Wisconsin, Temple, and Bowling Green. We are playing none of those teams this year. All but Kent State were still on the schedule as of 2 years ago. We also had ECU scheduled, then dropped them, then scheduled a long-term series with them where we play every year through 2015. I really don't think we need to be in the business of publishing future schedules. --B (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"We" being Virginia Tech. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of High School Football Coaches

I was wondering what exactly qualifies a high school football coach to get a Wikipedia article. I mean, where's that thin line the separates those HS coaches that are notable, from those who are not? I think you all would agree with me that John McKissick, Gordon Wood, Paul Tyson, and Bob Ladouceur each deserve an article. But who else? Guys like Chuck Moser, who established records for longest winning streak and things like that? Or coaches like Art Briles, Todd Dodge, and Alan Weddell (their respective collegiate coaching careers aside), that won multiple state titles? What exactly qualifies a high school coach for being notable? --Bender235 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess the standard notability guidelines could help here....things like national media coverage, and stuff. A guy like Rush Propst is notable enough due to the MTV TV show he was on. High school football coaches are probably just going to have to be assessed on a case by case basis to see if they meet notability guidelines. If we said something like "multiple state title winners" were notable then that would still include a boatload of coaches, most of whom truly aren't notable. Just my two cents. Seancp (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seancp, as of right now it should be on a case-by-case basis. Only the most notable HS coaches should have an article. The top 3% or so. PGPirate 14:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So here are some examples from Texas:

• G. A. Moore: all-time winningest coach in Texas HS football. Notable?
• Phil Danaher: winningest active coach in Texas HS football. Notable?
• D. W. Rutledge: four-time 5A championship winner at Converse Judson. Notable?
• Travis Raven: three-time 4A state championship, national championship winner at Austin Reagan. Notable?
• John Wilkins: two-time 4A champioship winner at Odessa Permian. Notable?
• Todd Dodge: 124–46 in 13 years as head coach, five state title games. Notable?
• Chad Morris: 135–25 in 14 years as head coach, four state title games. Notable?
• P. E. Shotwell: 255–92–18 in 34 years, couple of titles. Notable?
• Randy Allen: 244–69–6 in 27 years as head coach, couple of titles. Notable?
• John Ferrara, Ronnie Thompson: pioneers of the air-it-out football, state champions. Notable?
• Gary Gaines: coach of the 1988 Odessa Permian team, subject of Friday Night Lights. Notable?

Who's notable, who's not? I'm just trying to find some kind of level a coach has to reach at which he is notable. --Bender235 (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that for our purposes here, we are only concerned about high school coaches that have an impact on college football. Anyone want to make a Wikipedia:WikiProject High School football ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd support such a project. But anyway, my question was whether these coaches are notable for the Wikipedia in general. --Bender235 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we wouldn't just follow WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE as normal. But, as has been mentioned, this is beyond the scope of this project.↔NMajdan•talk 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we follow WP:ATHLETE by only adding coaches “who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports,” we'd probably have to remove articles on coaches like Fran Welch, Klepto Holmes, or Chuck Shelton, because none of them competed at the highest level of college football, Division I-A. --Bender235 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:BIO and/or WP:ATHLETE.↔NMajdan•talk 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But the criterias given on WP:BIO aren't exactly unambiguous.

1. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.

What is a "recognized award" in high school sports? "USA Today HS Coach of the Year"? "Houston Chronicle HS Coach of the Year"? "National High School Hall of Fame" membership? "Texas Sports Hall of Fame" membership?

1. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Look at the list I've posted above. Did Gordon Wood made a significant contribution to Texas HS football? Did John Wilkins? Todd Dodge? Art Briles? Chad Morris?

I am really not sure. --Bender235 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Parade All-Americans? Supposed to be a prestigious honor, though likely someone who is getting this award is likely highly recruited and might get an article anyways, and I think only 300 people vote in this (when it's open for all to vote, or something to the effect). Wendy High School Heismans? 2/year out of 100k kids? (1 male, 1 female are chosen) MECU≈talk 02:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You would've been right if we were talking about high school players, but we're talking about coaches. --Bender235 (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, we shouldn't worry too much about it. It's not part of the project. Don't go looking for trouble, I always say just said for the first time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So does anybody support Paul McDonald's suggestion of a Wikipedia:WikiProject High School football?

Anyway, I think we should discuss this topic here. --Bender235 (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You might get more interest from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools too. I couldn't find a specific high school WikiProject. MECU≈talk 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer?

I somehow missed the discussion when we decided to replace {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}} with {{Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}. Could someone help me out? --Bender235 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did too. I like the former much better.↔NMajdan•talk 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember a discussion either. Perhaps someone was being bold? My memory tells me that the latter was used until someone went and changed them to the former to be more standardized accross all articles, but my memory has lied before. MECU≈talk 15:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I was just checking to see if I wasn't the only one wondering where this came from. I'm ambivilant to either one; though I always lean towards whichever permits more information. --Bobak (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As a point of reference, the first was was created in Nov 06 while the latter was created in Dec 07. And they both have the same information. The latter has a bowl game section but I don't see how that is relevant.↔NMajdan•talk 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was created to resemble the NFL player infobox. Since both have similar parameters, perhaps it would make switching to the NFL infobox easier once the player gets drafted into the NFL? Assuming both infoboxes provide the same info, I still prefer the NCAA Athlete one since its design is better. I wouldn't mind if there should be a consensus to start using the new infobox. BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me please!

Today, I created the page 2008 USF Bulls football team, but apparently, it is not "notable" enough. Can someone please help a Wiki-n00b? Please keep in mind that it is a work in progress and I will add to it (as well as some people I know from a forum) when I get more time. Thanks! crambone (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks all right to me. There's no pending deletion notice or anything. The tag currently at the top of the article just means that you need to add references when you get a chance. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Division I-A football seasons are inherently notable. It needs to be moved to 2008 South Florida Bulls football team, though (see 2007 South Florida Bulls football team). I think UAB and USC are the only ones where we use the abbreviation in the article names - for those schools, it isn't an abbreviation, but it's actually an official name of the school. --B (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LSU uses the abreviation too. Seancp (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how do I move the article from one to another? Isn't that the Wikipedia equivalent of "double-posting"? hah, thanks. crambone (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is hit the move button, that is beside history on the USF page. Than follow the instructions. Pretty painless. It seems someone has copied the USF to University of South Florida though... Will prob need to page blank the USF page. Than put a redirect on the USF page. PGPirate 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I just did it instead. If you ever need to move pages, use the Move button. PGPirate 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I am sorry! I tried to do it the "right way", and I hope I didn't mess anything up too bad. Thank you for helping me!!! crambone (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Milestone?

I know I have not read every article we have on a team season, so perhaps this has been done before. However, this is a "first" for any football article I've worked on so I thought I would share with the project. Thanks to many kind photogs on both Wikipedia and Flickr, we have managed to collect at least one photograph for every game during the 2007 Texas Longhorn football team. There are too many for the season article, in fact, so the spillover is at Commons.[2]

I've nominated the WP article for GA so we'll see how that goes. As always, feedback is welcome! Johntex\^talk 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing it now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessed

I just went though and assessed about 60 or so articles (i'll do more later). A lot of them were bowl articles and i realized how much work this project has to do with bowl articles. A lot of the articles didn't have an infobox or didn't even have a lead sentence it just went into talking about the game not even really saying what it was. I just wanted to point that out. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that work! Did you find any gems in the mix? Anything that might be close to GA quality? Johntex\^talk 16:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• From what I looked at, the only ones that i assessed as B Class were Alex Smith (quarterback) and 2002 Arkansas Razorbacks football team. Both of them need more sources and the Arkansas one needs some MOS help. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will put some MOS energy into the Hogs. Johntex\^talk 10:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed semi-pro football project

There is currently a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Semi-pro football to focus on those articles which specifically deal with content related to semi-pro football leagues and teams. Anyone interested in working in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New Assessment box needed

On the assessment page, there's no place in the "scorebox" to indicate the number of FL-class articles in the project. Is there another box we could use? Right now, the only indicator of FL-class CFB articles is on the list on the front page of the project, and I use the assessment box for that information. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot that goes through all the WikiProjects creates that scorebox. And it doesn't support separate FLs as it counts those as featured. Which, personally, I agree with. I don't like separate list classes. We don't have a list-space, we have article space so even though the majority of the article is a list, its still an article. My opinion.↔NMajdan•talk 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Lists are not articles. “FL” are not “FA.” It is confusing especially when you consider that “List” can not be “GA”. If we, as a project, do not want a “FL” classification then all lists should be mark “NA” on the Project tag. 09er (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nmajdan. FL is a sub-part of FAs. But I think the problem may be that the bot that does the work may not be setup to parse/understand FL categories which is what are used to calculate the content. If you can find another project that has FLs, then it's possible, otherwise it would require work on the bot owner/operator(s) to add the capability, regardless of what we decide here. MECU≈talk 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Chicago records its FLs, but I'm not sure if they do it manually or by bot. Either way, I've created a category in the assessment scorebox to hold FLs for now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've set up the process, but it appears that the college football template — the one for the talk pages — needs to be updated as well, and an administrator needs to do that. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well that FL are lower than FA, but they have featured status none-the-less. I agree as well that FL are lower than FA, but they have featured status none-the-less. They deserve their separate category. Our FL is growing and needs recognition. PGPirate 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It looked like it was automatic, so I made the changes. The lists are starting to show up in the category, it will take a little time for all 10000+ pages to get processed with the new template, but less than a day for sure. MECU≈talk 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I ran the bot manually, and everything looks nice and shiny. Thanks, Mecu! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent coaches added

I've recently added the following team coaches

• New York University, Jake High and other coaches
• Virginia Military Institute, Sparky Woods and other coaches
• The Citadel, L. S. LeTellier and other coaches

please review and consider merging if you recognize any of the coaches! use the coach navbox at the bottom of each page and review each coach that has been added--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you added the banner to all of the talk pages. Nonetheless, great work!↔NMajdan•talk 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed a few, but I do remember going through and adding them. What stinks is that it's "clumsy" to add to their discussion page in rapid-fire succession...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Head coach notability

If anyone's interested, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch concerning the notability of a coach. It appears that the person who started the discussion has a severe bias against sports and football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. PGPirate 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Incentive

		The Florida Gators Barnstar
		For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators.

• The Official Florida Gators Wikiproject will award this Barnstar to editors who help to expand articles pertaining to the Florida Gators. Jccort (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nom nom nom. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Idea for Rankings pages

I've got an idea to improve the rankings pages. A reader could select to show lines that connect a team from week to week, making it easier to show how a team progressed. So, if they wanted to see LSU, they click the LSU check box and the lines appear that connect their ranking on that table for the week. They can show all 25+ teams if they wanted, or just one. I did an example which I did in GIMP which you can see at http://www.bcsfanpoll.com/lines.png (270k). Again, although I show several teams being displayed, the user would be selecting how many to show at one. So here's the problem: The best way I can figure to add this is via JavaScript and/or a Wikipedia:Gadgets, and I don't know JavaScript. So, firstly, would something like this be useful? Would you use something like it? Secondly, can anyone help me create this and/or create this by themselves? My thought is the JavaScript would have to parse all the ranking content and store the info in arrays and then be able to draw the lines on the table as appropriate (using the hex color code for the team). I don't think this is any small undertaking and am not sure of the usefulness, especially if people have to enable to feature to be used or include it in their monobook. I would prefer it to be available for all readers, regardless of account status. I'd appreciate any feedback and certainly help. MECU≈talk 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalled CFB FAC

Lots of lovely acronyms here. Anyway, I've thrown 2005 ACC Championship Game up for FAC review, but have had a hard time getting anyone to review it. If you've got a moment, could you just click the link, review the article, and leave a few comments? Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we please qualify the Template talk:NCAAFootballSchool line on "national titles"

It has come up, but never to significant consensus. I am fine with keeping the same qualification, however I think it really it should be noted that we're talking about 1936+. The lack of any qualification in the infobox keeps causing confusion with well-meaning editors. I'm sure I'm not the only one running into editors coming in to change something they genuinely believe should be a different number; when I explain that its wire titles, or titles post-1936, they sometimes reply "well why doesn't it say so?" and I really have no excuse other than "well, some people came to an agreement a while ago that I only found out about after it happened". I have a simple proposal, why don't we change the line describing national titles in Template talk:NCAAFootballSchool {{!}} '''National titles''' to {{!}} '''[[NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship#Most_Poll_Era_National_Championships|Wire]] National titles'''; the link to Most Poll Era National Championships in the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article makes sense, identifies where the numbers are coming from, and would help cut down on these conflicts that continue to pop up as new users who have no idea that there was some discussion on the matter simply read "National Titles" and think "hey, I saw ESPN say they have x but that says y". I don't think this should be a controversial request, as (we all know) the NCAA doesn't award a national title and picking which titles consist of canon (example) requires some qualification anyway, so why shouldn't we openly display our reasoning? I checked and I don't think the word "wire" makes the infobox look odd. --Bobak (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with 'wire' titles listed in the infobox, but I don't think we should get to the point that we start listing all different possibilities of titles in the infobox. That information should be in the article text. For example, a school claims 26, they have 5 wire titles, but they have 23 more non-wires, we don't need to list all these in the infobox. Just some standard reference way to give a quick overall "standard" established way of referring and comparing teams by a quick look at the infobox. We could even have a link in the "wire" (aside to the link that Bobak suggested) explaining the problem and our solution, and "although a team may claim more or less or a user may have a standard knowledge that the number is different, we've done this as it's the only NPOV/fair way we can think of and to read the article text for more exact clarification of the total titles the school may claim/has/been awarded." MECU≈talk 21:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing magical about "wire" titles as compared to non-wire titles. The University of Southern California claims 11 national championships in football, be they before 1936 or after. Who cares? The issue of national championships in D-IA college football and the lack of consensus is not a new issue. There is no label on the info box for USC that somehow qualifies the information to "wire" titles only, and if there were, that still would not solve the problem. Wikipedia is about taking a multitude of contributions and building consensus. I will continue to think that the USC infobox should list 11 national championships until I can be convinced otherwise. Newguy34 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MECU that it would be problematic to have more than one line on nat'l titles in the infobox, and that any confusion between claimed, consensus including pre-1936, and wire (probably the three most popular ways of gathering data) can be sorted out in the article text. I am fine with using Wire because its probably the clearest of the three (wire also takes into account the confusion of split titles), I just wanted to clarify the difference in the infobox. --Bobak (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the template is to be used for all respective programs, why not let the respective universities decide how many national championships each claims? I don't understand where the harm is in that. I don't understand why that would create confusion. I don't understand why that would create any additional work. The plain and simple fact is that before 1936 (or 1934) several organizations awarded national championships, which in their day, were the best the system could develop. Today, it is a bit easier to determine a single national champion (kinda), but history is just that, history. It is inappropriate in an encyclopedic journal to decide which history we will adopt and which we will ignore. There is no single governing authority on the matter, save maybe the NCAA, so I don't understand why we are trying to introduce yet more confusion into the equation by only listing "wire" championships (of which the BCS is, ironically, not) when it would suit things adequately just to let each school determine how many it chooses to claim. To add confusion, we don't in any way indicate that we are only listing "wire" championships in the info boxes. No disrespect intended, but it strikes me to be a creepy parallel universe where we try to subdue confusion by introducing more confusion and inaccuracy. Can someone help me sort through the oppressive algebra on all this? Newguy34 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Letting schools decide would be very POV. What if BYU came out and said they have 99 titles? To be NPOV, we must have a clear, arbitrary standard that doesn't include any specific POV, even if some disagree with whatever standard we set. This was heavily discussed before, both here and on another team article that was under dispute. (I don't remember which, but the discussion here would point to it.) MECU≈talk 12:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always felt that we should list whatever the schools officially claim. The BYU argument is a weak one because for one thing, they don't claim 99 titles, and if they did then everyone would know its BS. I think the infobox should show what the schools claim. It's not POV because we are simply reporting a fact: i.e. LSU officially claim 3 national titles. Whether or not they are legit claims is irrevelent, the school still claims them. Any controversy can be documented in the article intself. For example, I believe Ole Miss officially claim 3 titles. Even ESPN acknowledges that when they broadcast their games, however, none of their titles are from the AP or Coaches poll, so their claims are on shaky ground, but that still doesn't change the FACT that the school claims 3 titles. And the text in the article can and should reflect that none of these titles are from major sources. Seancp (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seancp. The goal should be to journal encyclopedic information as it has been reported and sourced from reliable sources. Truth or otherwise is really not the most important factor here. Whether we agree with the information or not, is not the important factor here. For us to decide which facts we will include and which we won't is the ultimate POV, in my opinion. Additionally, whether we have discussed it once before or a thousand times before is equally irrelevant. Wikipedia is a dynamic, ever-changing (essentially, dynamic), encyclopedic journal of information gathered from reliable sources based on consensus for inclusion. What we lack in this matter is recognition of dynamism and consensus. Not trying to drudge up old junk, but I think we need to deliberate on it. Newguy34 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 29 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this list get automatically updated? I cleared like 15 of them. Most were head coaches from long ago whose stub article probably led someone to think they weren't worth an article. There's probably only 5-9 articles left on that list. A NFL wannabe, a highschool coach or two and a few college players (one from Kansas). MECU≈talk 13:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sitting here looking over this material and thinking how valuable it is to know what others are trying to delete because they don't like college football--we recently encountered that with a notability discussion on a coach. But I've also seen lots of articles that clearly don't meet the notability guidelines. Thanks, Mecu, for following up on the coaches and all the articles in the list--I'll take a look myself. But my question is--can we make this a kind of "special page" that gets updated when someone wants to delete a page from the project, or hits it with a "notability" tag? Yeah, they're "supposed" to let us know--and most of the time they do--but sometimes the original editor may be out of reach for a while and we could lose a potenitailly good article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject College football is to try to find time to review Kenwyne Jones and Ion Croitoru. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of coaches name column to List of NAIA football programs page

I have started discussion at Talk:List of NAIA football programs in response to the addition of a coaches column to this article. Commentary and feedback would appreciated. Gwguffey (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Master team list

Hey, gang... need some input and discussion. Please come to Talk:List of NAIA football programs to assist with a discussion on a coach's list, team list, and working on something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable for NAIA, Div III, Div II, and Div I FCS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporary partnership

Hey, one of WikiProject homeschooling's nominations was Tim Tebow. Well, I was wondering that, if it passes, we could sort of work together with them to improve the article. Let me know what you think. Kimu 21:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that we have several people who will work on this page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Project notability

I couldn't find a comprehensive page on notability for our project, so I started a page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football/Notability. Please, please, please--everyone jump in and let's get this hammered out! I think this is really important to our project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was waiting to roll this out until it was done, but check out this page:Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Style_Guide. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. Should merge your page into the existing page and redirect or delete your page to prevent confusion. The page has some heavy contention by non-WPCFB editors. MECU≈talk 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to do so. I'd only intended the document to be a proposal, but I've since largely abandoned it due to the fact that there's so much else to do and not much demand for a style guide. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear. I was replying to Paul McDonald's comment about notability. Your style guide seems useful, it may overlap with somethings like the season layout but I haven't looked that closely. MECU≈talk 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)