Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

2014–15 College Football Playoff

2014–15 College Football Playoff was created a few days ago. Do we really need this article given that we have 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games, 2015 College Football Championship Game, 2015 Rose Bowl, 2015 Sugar Bowl to cover this in more and less detail? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just redirect it to 2014–15_NCAA_football_bowl_games#Playoff_bracket, or 2014_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season#Bowl_games_and_the_College_Football_Playoff. Somewhere should summarize the playoff process at a high level without needing to go to each individual game article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect per Bagumba's suggestion. We don't need to cover the same information in mutliple articles: there are already separate articles for the two semifinal bowls and the championship game, as well as coverage in the 2014-15 NCAA football bowl games article. The newly created article is completely redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Redirected to 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick question re All American template

How is information in this template updated? Someone at Ohio State Buckeyes keeps removing the (outdated-by-one) automatic figure from the info box and substituting the (correct) figure by hand - I see the point, but have been reverting it because it strikes me as more sensible to have all references to the figure point to a single source. Also, the correct figure isn't (as far as I know) yet reflected in any official NCAA material, which the template asks that editors adhere to - do we wait until February or March when the NCAA publishes the last year's stats? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I have updated the NCAA link in the template. FYI, for the last several years, the NCAA has simply placed the current year's records book in a different subcategory of the same web address. Note the "2012" year in the web address for the template; by substituting "2014" into the web address, it takes you directly to the 2014 PDF edition of the NCAA records book. As the editor who found the record book online in the first instance, I can tell you that it beats trying to find it with a Google search. Also, no one is compelled to use the templated reference form; I, for one, do not use it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd already found the 2014 link (thank goodness for consistent naming conventions), but I counted and determined that reflects the (I gather, out of date) figure of 78. I think OSU added one this year, which won't show up "officially" until some time in 2015 after the bowl season is over and the NCAA can start their presses. If the template usage is not important, then I guess we can just fix it by hand - but I still do wonder how one would go about updating it. Where does the template get "78"? JohnInDC (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

John, here's a couple of suggestions. Once a player in question has received a majority of first-team selections from the NCAA-recognized All-American selectors, he is a de facto consensus All-American and the sports media will start to mention him as a "consensus All-American." Given that the NCAA will not update its records book until some time in 2015, this leaves editors in quandry regarding verifying consensus All-American status with reliable sources. Until the NCAA releases the 2015 edition of its records book, however, there is nothing wrong with using ESPN or another reliable mainstream media outlet as your source for consensus status. For the template numbers, I suggest you use hidden text to note the source for any interim update, so those numbers can be reconciled when the 2015 records book is available. Hidden text can be a very useful tool for leaving a popcorn trail for other editors (and yourself) to follow and to correct any mistakes later.

Thank you for taking responsibility for this -- your initiative is appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hidden text is a good idea. I'll do that. Um, once I find a source that confirms what this new user has been arguing the correct figure is - Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, get the new user to tell you what his source is -- presumably, he's not making it up out of thin air. I know, I know . . . sometimes easier said than done. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ingle Martin total offense stats

Can someone who is either a Furman Paladins football fan or a CFB editor who is knowledgeable regarding Division I FCS records take a look at the Ingle Martin article? In particular, can you examine and attempt to verify the following statement:

"He also holds the top two season performances in College Football History with 7,084 yards in total offense in 2004 and 8,193 yards in 2005."

Can anyone reconcile these outlandish total offense numbers? They are so far off the charts as to be disbelieved, and they are, of course, unsourced. Even assuming high-end passing stats of 3,000 to 4,000 yards per season, no one runs for another 3,000 to 4,000 yards on top of that, even in FCS competition. (By comparison, Tim Tebow received the Heisman for throwing for 3,300 yards and running for another 900.) Is there some form of total offense statistic with which I am not familiar that could render these types of numbers? Anyone? Bueller? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Those numbers have to be wrong. Certainly if they were right they'd have warranted at least passing mention on the page that Furman maintains about Martin, here. Indeed the page claims healthy, but still far more modest accomplishments for him: "despite playing only two seasons, set new school records for passing yards (5,761),passing touchdowns (42),and total offense (6,277)". I removed these figures - and suggest that other assertions in the article be reviewed for potential inflation. Good eye, DL - JohnInDC (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

NCAA FCS records (as of 2007) beginning p 189 here. Not on the top of any of those lists either. JohnInDC (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The page was heavily vandalized by a (since blocked) IP a year ago. Not all of it got cleaned up. The above is one; I just fixed another. JohnInDC (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Todd Hoffner

I just created an article for Todd Hoffner, head coach of this year's Division II runners-up, Minnesota State–Mankato. He was involved in quite the scandal over the past couple years. I hadn't heard about this until doing the research now. I think we want to keep an eye on this article and make sure that everything's covered fairly. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Bio articles of questionable notablity

I dug up a few bio articles with subjects of questionable notability: Aaron King (American football), Chris Koepplin, Mike Parker (American football). Please take a looks and see if these are worthy of expansion or should be taken to AfD. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Took a look at King. Seems to have gotten coverage for at least two events. 1) Leading up to 2007 draft as long snapper prospectYahooCBS Sports. 2) Arrest [1]. Unless there was more non-routine coverage of his career, I'd argue this is more two isolated events with no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here are 21 more weak articles that should be considered for AfD: Milton Colbert, Robbie Nallenweg, Robert Johnson (wide receiver), Jeremy Kimbrough, Javier Zuluaga, Harry Barlow, Jacob Maxwell, Avery Patterson, Robert Connors, Tom Greenlee, Willie Hill, Quron Pratt, Kevin Graf, Jake Dombrowski, Frank Pattee, Bob Bill, James Ferentz and Steven Dean Memorial Trophy; BCS statistics (merge to Bowl Championship Series), List of LSU Tigers football poll history (merge to LSU season articles), and List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history (merge to LSU season articles). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Another: Robert Paulele (recreated following PROD). JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Another: Dallas Walker. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

IP just made literally hundreds of questionable edits

Special:Contributions/24.249.251.212 -- just has made a ton of edits, mostly changing ULL to UL when we abbreviate for Louisiana-Lafayette. The IP address geolocates to Lafayette, Louisiana, and may be official representation of the university, which based on my article writing for the 2014 New Orleans Bowl does appear to want to be known as simply the University of Louisiana. I considered rolling back all the contribs, but wanted to seek some consensus here first. Will ping a few active users: @Jweiss11: @Dirtlawyer1: @Cbl62: @Bob305: @Mudwater: @Bagumba: @JohnInDC:. Thanks in advance for all your input. Go Phightins! 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. We've been through this "branding" issue with Lousiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Western Kentucky and several others. At this point, I don't really give a flip what the WP:COMMONNAME is -- because it's subject to change. Has anyone thought about visiting the athletic department website or calling the sports information director and asking what they want to be called in third-party publications and media? COMMONNAME is eventually going to track whatever the official brand name is. That having been said, I did just visit the university and athletic department websites, and I see no major rebranding effort underway. The university continues to brand itself as "University of Louisiana at Lafayette," or "UL Lafayette" for short. The athletic department brands its teams "Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns." I see no official reference to either "UL" or "ULL." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise the U-L system, and the school itself, use "University of Louisiana-Lafayette" pretty consistently. If the convention in WP articles is to refer to the school as ULL, then changing it arbitrarily to UL - without any consensus or even discussion - seems entirely rollbackable to me - JohnInDC (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, the problem in this case is that, unlike similar cases that are more or less a matter of inter-Wiki politicking by fanboys for their preferred name, this one is a real-life mess that has spilled over into Wiki-land. First, some background info: in 1998, the nine-member University of Louisiana System agreed to let their two largest campuses remove the directional designations from their names. As part of the compromise, it was expressly agreed that no school would be the official flagship of the University of Louisiana, and both schools would be bound to use the city designations in their names (see here). And so, the University of Southwestern Louisiana became the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and Northeast Louisiana University became the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Over the last several years, Louisiana–Lafayette has basically just been ignoring said compromise and pasting "Louisiana" (without the "Lafayette" city designation) on jerseys, logos, ect. Never mind the fact that their sister school which is a member of the same conference believes that it has every much right (or not!) to claim de facto flagship status as they do. A quick look at the talk page reveals that numerous move requests have been put forward here, all ending with a decision to remain at Louisiana–Lafayette. As you can see, this situation is a total mess, and it's unlikely to get any better any time soon, unless someone higher up in Louisiana state government intervenes here. So, what do we do? At the very least, I think we can all agree that the "UL" designation should not be used here, as it is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the University of Louisville or the University of Louisiana - never mind which branch campus. And, while it probably doesn't fulfill the perfect desires for either school, the "Louisiana–Lafayette" and "Louisiana–Monroe" naming conventions are really probably the only way to present the information fairly while adhering to a NPOV here. As far as the practical aspects of this, IMHO, the edits in question identified by Go Phightins are bordering on the edge of flat-out vandalism and/or POV-pushing. As a matter of fact, I would have no problem permanently auto-protecting the entire Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns family of articles, as the abuse there has been both steadily-recurring and of long standing. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Weighing all of the factors, including the nice summary of the history by EJ, I think WP:CFB should lose the three-letter initialisms (ULL and ULM), and adopt the unambiguous Louisiana-Lafayette and Louisiana-Monroe for our short-form names to be used in article titles, infoboxes, navboxes and record tables. While I have encountered the "ULM" usage from time to time, I have never seen "ULL" anywhere other than Wikipedia. Moreover, beyond these two special cases, I also think we should also consider whether to continue using the three-letter Associated Press convention of referring to certain universities and their sports teams by their ambiguous initialisms (e.g., BYU, FSU, SMU, USC, WKU). We are already inconsistent in our Wikipedia usage, using USC for Southern California, but Florida State instead of FSU, for example. In many if not most instances, it is also unclear whether the initialism is, in fact, the WP:COMMONNAME. Given the choice of FSU Seminoles, or Florida State Seminoles, I would choose the latter for article titles, infoboxes, navboxes and record tables. Once the fuller, unambiguous name is stated, then the shortest form initialism can be introduced and used within article text as appropriate. We should not assume that our readers are (a) college sports fans who are familiar with these initialisms, or (b) know the AP conventions for sports writers. With regard to this particular controversy, however, "UL" properly only refers to the University of Louisiana System, and not any particular university within the system, and our Wikipedia usage should reflect that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I agree, but think we need some extreme short form for game summaries, as even writing Louisiana-Lafayette a bunch of times is cumbersome ... Go Phightins! 18:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm. How about U-La-La? JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice, John. Now, can you say that with a Justin Wilson Cajun accent? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Generally, WP should consistently use WP:COMMONNAME, even if the use of abbreviations across different schools in common sources is inconsistent. Readers being unfamiliar with sports naming conventions are addressed through redirects from alternative names to their common names. The actual name of the article does not need to be dumbed down. Proper context for non-sports fans unfamiliar with the common name, e.g. stating the name of the academic institution, should be provided in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba, I usually agree with WP:COMMONNAME outcomes. In the case of "ULL", however, there is a serious question whether that abbreviation actually represents majority usage -- now or ever. I don't think it does, but the university and athletic department have changed their branding so much over the last 15 years that any determination of the common name is, at best, a guess. As for "USC", is "USC" really more common than "Southern Cal"? Is Florida State more common than FSU? BYU more common than Brigham Young? Frankly, a lot of these three-letter abbreviations are the invention of the Associated Press for the convenience of their sports writers. I also think the recent ULL and WKU COMMONNAME controversies should provide cautionary guidance on point. I know, for instance, that WP:Universities does not strictly follow WP:COMMONNAME, and often uses something closer to official names for article titles. Bottom line: we are under no obligation to follow any guideline blindly, especially when it yields an outcome that is confusing for our readers. Here, neither UL or ULL are arguably proper abbreviations for the university or its sports programs. In fact, I can't figure out why WP:CFB started using "ULL" in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on Louisiana-Lafayette specifically. It was a response to what I interpreted as your proposal to generally not use abbreviations for school names. If your point was that a few instances need to be revisited, I can accept that there may be some discrepancies in individual cases. Otherwise, I still think we should generally use COMMONNAME. AP alone doesn't dictate COMMONAME, unless it's conventions are followed by the majority of sources. Regarding WP:Universities, names used in sports and academics can be totally different and acceptable in real life, let alone WP. University of California, Berkeley is more commonly called Berkeley or UC Berkeley in academics, but they only go by California or simply Cal in sports, even though there are 10 campuses in the University of California system. I'd hate to have readers looking to brush up on their college sports on Wikipedia to leave erroneously thinking their football team is the University of California, Berkeley Golden Bears, or Nebraska's is the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Cornhuskers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bags, I think we agree more than we don't: California Golden Bears and Nebraska Cornhuskers are the accepted common names for the university sports programs and also correspond to the universities' official branding. No conflict there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

I keep an eye on Category:College football articles by quality and aim keep the number of unassessed articles as close to zero as possible. This number recently skyrocketed over 300 after some furious project banner tagging by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao of theretofore untagged college football articles. I've gotten this number down to the 230s, but I could use some help assessing the remainder. We also have another 300 or so articles covering the 2014 season that are rated Current or Future class. Some of these (largely team seasons that have ended) already need to be rated on a quality scale and all of them will need to be in a few weeks. Can we get some people to pitch in here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got some time off coming up over the holidays, so Ill try to throw sometime into hacking away some of the back log.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Dcheagle, awesome Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we referring to the ??? category, JW? If so, I will take a whack at them, too. I assume that most are Stubs and Starts, with a handful of Class C's and above. Have we done any sort of rough notability assessment on them yet? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the "???" or Category:Unassessed college football articles. Yes, they are likely Stubs and Starts mostly. Not sure that anyone has done a notability assessment of these. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The unassessed backlog is down to 137. Nice work. Let's keep going. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We're down to 97. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Okina for Hawaii and accent for San Jose State

@Bsuorangecrush: and I have little edit war brewing about okinas for Hawaii and accents for San Jose State; see Template:2014 Mountain West Conference football standings. As you can see, the relevant articles (Hawaii Rainbow Warriors football, Hawaii Bowl, San Jose State Spartans football, and the like) are titled without these characters, and that's the way those entities are generally represented in third-party sources. These accents and okinas are unneeded ornamentation and do not need to be used when linking to these articles or referencing their subjects in other articles and templates. Bsuorangecrush has argued that we need to keep them because they've been there for a while. That they have been there for some time only attests to the fact that we have lived with this small mistake, not that we shouldn't fix it now where it persists. What do others think? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

San Jose State I don't care about. Hawaii though has been listed in schedule and standing tables for years as Hawaiʻi. If you look at both of the articles Jweiss11 lists, both don't have the okina, but both have it listed with the okina in the opening line of the article. As far as I'm concerned, the okina should be there because that is how it is officially spelled. I believe the article titles don't have them so they are easier for people to find when they search for them. So to me they should be there and the only reason I reverted Jweiss11 removal of them was that I did not want it to have it on some pages and not on others. If they were to be removed that would involve edits to every college football and college basketball teams page whom they have played for probably the last 5 years at least. That's a ton of editing. I don't see any need for it. Hawaiʻi, not Hawaii, seems to be the official spelling and I believe should stay listed as is. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We generally use WP:COMMONNAME. The proper forum to settle this would be at the general school sports articles, e.g. San Jose State Spartans, where an WP:RM could be initiated if there is to be a change in consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, can't we assume the current article titles carry the preexisting consensus? As for Hawaii and the okina, there's no okina used on the structural listings on ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/62/hawaii-warriors) and I doubt you'll find them anywhere else. Also, per Bsuorangecrush's comment above, the use of the okina is not dominant in the instances of the references to Hawaii across Wikipedia. I don't believe they appear on any of the bio articles for the Hawaii head football coaches. They are not there on many of the team season articles, such as 1998 Michigan Wolverines football team or 1994 Oregon Ducks football team. There's going to be some editing involved either way to make it consistent. I'd venture it will be far less work (if that really matters) to remove the existing okinas than to add them in all instances of "Hawaii". Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would want to list anything incorrectly. Isn't this suppose to be an encyclopedia? Shouldn't an encyclopedia have correct information? As far as I know Hawaiʻi is spelled with the okina. So to me that should be official. If you guys want to take the time to change them all then I guess I don't care but I feel it will be removing official correct info to change it to something spelled wrong. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, everybody usually thinks they are correct. When there is disagreement, WP operates on consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to be anymore "correct" than reliable third-party sources (like ESPN) are. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ESPN has never done anything wrong....only all the time. I've never thought the "ESPN does it" argument has ever really meant anything. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How about just about every other reliable third-party source, e.g. College Football Data Warehouse, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Yahoo, sports-reference. com, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post... Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How about the teams own uniforms? Okina is there. Shouldn't that matter? I'd think the school themselves would know how it should be written. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Third party trumps first party every time. Do you want to go around putting a "The" before every mention of "Ohio State University"? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, even the lead of Hawaii here on Wikipedia makes it clear that the use of the okina is a Hawaiian language variant, i.e. it's not English. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100% with Jweiss here. The English-language names for these two teams are "Hawaii" and "San Jose State" Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there is any reason to change it. However, since most of my edits are creations of season articles and updates, I just need to know how to list it in the future. For the last few seasons I have always put the okina, on hawaii's pages and their opponents. If that should not be there in the future then I won't put it. But I am not going to take the time to go back and remove all of them. Way to many other things to do before that. So just tell me how to do it in the future and I'll do it that way. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thatʻs fine. Everyone can pitch in cleaning it up. Just simply write "Hawaii" where you would have otherwise written it with the okina. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, quit joking around with my talk page comments, ok(ina)? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bill Swancutt - Oregon State

Hello,

I found the Bill Swancutt article via the Random Article button. Unfortunately, due to my lack of knowledge of NFL, I am unable to expand any further. If anyone can have a look over it to check my terminology/ phrasing is correct, and make any improvements, it will be very much appreciated.

Thanks very much, ツStacey (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Harbaugh

Am I being too pedantic in insisting that we await an actual announcement from the school, presumably tomorrow, rather than relying on media reports from "persons not authorized to speak to the press" - as ubiquitous as they may be? JohnInDC (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what the Detroit Free Press is reporting this evening, and as likely as it seems to me, to my mind this is not sufficient for the articles to reflect this as fait accompli:

After weeks of speculation that he was the top target, that the Wolverines would have to fight off NFL teams and that U-M offered $8 million a season, Harbaugh has signed an agreement and will be introduced at a news conference at noon Tuesday as U-M's next football coach, two people within the university with knowledge of the negotiations told the Free Press this evening. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because U-M officials weren't authorized to speak publicly about the coaching search.

JohnInDC (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I was reverting at first, but then I figured it was better to format the Harbaugh stuff the right way rather than to let the IPs/newbies keep junking things up. The issue should be moot tomorrow. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In short, no, not too pedantic but perhaps not the most practical! Okay - thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPORTSTRANS describes how this could be handled.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While this is an essay and not a Wikipedia guideline, it does seem to embody the core wisdom of past discussions on this topic. We should also have relatively standard explanatory language that can be used in edit summaries and that can be slapped on IP/newbie user talk pages so that they are receiving explanations of how and why these transactions are handled. That would help reduce reverts and frustration -- and Bagumba needs to be available to semi-protect sports bios when needed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Bagumba for that. Something along those lines appears to have worked its way into the Harbaugh article. While the position isn't official yet, all the noise surrounding it is certainly worth reporting - JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While we're all here, what's the general practice for describing a coach who's hired in calendar year 2014 for the 2015 season? "(2014 -)" or "(2015 -)"? JohnInDC (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be (2015– ) because he doesn't officially coach until the 2015 season. Although he is hired in 2014, I highly doubt he'll actually do anything until after the New Year. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Template:uw-sportstrans (linked in the "See also" of the essay) can be placed on user talk pages for convenience. Probably not much help for drive-by editors, who I don't expect are too familiar with WP guidelines, but hopeful can enlighten a registered user or two every now and then.—Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, Bags. I have flagged it for use next time I need it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Rose Bowl move request

There is an ongoing move request at Talk:Rose Bowl Game. -- Calidum 03:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The same editor who nominated this move also moved Rose Bowl (stadium) to Rose Bowl stadium. The stadium is known simply as the "Rose Bowl" so the parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The naming on the building itself even says "Rose Bowl" and it makes sense since it was modeled after the Yale Bowl. The bowl game is named after the stadium, not the other way around (heck, the term "bowl games" comes from the Rose Bowl name). In any case, the move of "Rose Bowl (stadium)" to "Rose Bowl stadium" should also be discussed first. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have just initiated a move request at Talk:Rose Bowl stadium#Requested move 31 December 2014 to reverse the recent move. Please comment there as well. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Assessment Drive

We have around 80 or so articles that are not assessed. It's good practice to keep articles classified properly for easy sorting. As a general rule, we should classify or assess articles with the criteria as described at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment. There is a table on that page with links to the different articles.

I'm pretty sure that once we finish up the bowl season, we'll want to tackle this quickly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: FYI, I've been through the entire original list of 234 unassessed CFB-related articles from 10 days ago, and the remaining 80 unassessed articles four or five times each. Of the 234, 150+ have been assessed and various WikiProject templates have been added, and 20+ of the remaining 80 or so have been identified as likely non-notable candidates for deletion at AfD (see thread started by Jweiss11 above). There are various issues with the remaining 60 or so; several of the subjects are not notable as football players, but may be notable for other aspects of their lives. Several may need to be merged; others need another set of eyeballs or two to evaluate them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

AWESOME! Naturally, if anyone is assessing an article and thinks it should be deleted then send it to AFD or just PROD it. Thanks for the work!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

TfD: inappropriate team navbox

I have nominated a non-championship team navbox for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 23#Template:LVPosseRoster. I know that several other inappropriate team navboxes have been created recently. Now might be a good time to nominate them all for TfD and do some house-keeping. If anyone has a list, you might name them below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DL, were have a slew of inaugural season roster navboxes out there, e.g. Category:National Football League inaugural season team roster navigational boxes. That's essentially what Template:LVPosseRoster is, since the franchise only existed for one season. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the expansion/inaugural season navboxes often have a high percentage of non-notable and marginally notable players. They work better as lists, just like most of the draft navboxes. WP:NFL has way too many crufty navboxes and a half dozen editors who do nothing but generate more of them -- like the L.A. Rams Special Teams Rookie of the Year Award. But that's not really WP:CFB's problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: Do any other CFL teams have inaugural season roster navboxes? If this is the only one that exists, that may clue us in right away as to what to do about it. Plus, CFL players are covered by WP:NGRIDIRON, right? So, presuming that all of these players actually played for the team during the season, they'd all meet the appropriate notability guideline. The fact that some of the articles haven't been written yet doesn't necessarily mean that they're non-notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The BC Lions do, Template:1954 BC Lions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There is really nothing to distinguish inaugural season navboxes. It is another example of navbox cruft that overwhelms the bottom of article pages for NFL players, and to a lesser degree, CFL players. Navboxes for Super Bowl, Grey Cup and consensus national college champions? Absolutely. For the inaugural season of the one-season Las Vegas posse? No, thank you. It's cruft, and the important navboxes get lost among the crap. Even more so for navboxes where more than two thirds of the linked players are red links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bowl game articles w/out navboxes or cats

WP:CFB members, please note new editor User:Surrmon is starting to create historic bowl game article stubs without navboxes, categories, or references. Please keep an eye on this. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume you've already talked to the user about the situation? Go Phightins! 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that would be a logical first step; perhaps you could show him links to the appropriate templates ... Go Phightins! 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've modded a standard warning template to also thank him for his contributions, and added it to his usertalk. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Year, year, year

What happens when the 1987 Peach Bowl is played on January 2, 1988, and the 1988 Peach Bowl is played on December 31, 1988?

I'll tell you what happens.

It messes with our navboxes. We have to make all sorts of wacky gyrations in the navbox to have the games show up.

It messes with users' heads. Everyone else calls the 1987 Peach Bowl the 1987 Peach Bowl, but we call it the 1988 Peach Bowl (January) because it happened on January 2. Not to be confused, of course, with the 1988 Peach Bowl (December) which happened a year later (almost a year, but on December 31).

So we end up with articles that are titled the 1988 Peach Bowl (January), called the 1988 Peach Bowl in the lead, but have 1987 Peach Bowl elsewhere in the article, and that's also what the rest of the world searches for. And if I try to fix it in the navbox, it plays havoc with only about a million other things.

Could we please simplify this just a bit? I want to make the season year the year for the title, but I know that some games in the 1987 season are played in February and called the 1988 game. Perhaps a nomenclature year, for games that seem to happen on both sides of New Year's Day, but only once per year? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just found out what the rest of the world does. They don't search for the 1991 Peach Bowl, they refer to the 1992 Peach Bowl without regard to the fact that there are two of them. That's horrifying. *sigh* Okay, I retract my ignorant comments. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, I was just about to respond to you. Yes, I suppose it is a little confusing. In cases where there were two games of a particular bowl in the same calendar year, we may want to clearly state which one we are talking about, depending on context, in other articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Access to free books

FYI

There are some sports-related title that you may find helpful at Wikipedia:McFarland. Sign up required.—Bagumba (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Division season titles

I have recently moved the 2012 and 2013 NAIA Championship pages to the conventional method of [division x or NAIA season] outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Style guide, and I thought that I should ask for input as to whether I should continue to move the other pages of this sort or cease and desist. I was also wondering about 73-77 Division I (currently branded as college football season) since when these articles were established, articles for Division II and III in these years have been created. I am also wondering about pre '73 article names (also as Year college football season) Note some categories are already named Year NCAA football season such as the Category for 1950 or the category titled 1906 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season. I have established in my previous questions on this page that I am a sucker for conformity and consistency so I know as a reader what to expect in articles. Any advice on possible course of action would be greatly appreciated.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words what I am suggesting I wonder if I could move some or all...

• I. Move the NAIA pages from Year NAIA Football National Championship to Year NAIA football season.
• II. Move 1973-77 season pages to say 1973 NCAA Division I football season.
• III. (Less concern to me) 1955 college football to 1955 NCAA University Division football season
• IV. 1930 college football season to 1930 NCAA football season

UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, this all seems like a reasonable proposal, particularly points I and II above. A couple notes there...On point I, if the NAIA Championship articles are going to repurposed and expanded to cover entire NAIA seasons, then the leads need to be rewritten accordingly. Also, the infoboxes need to changed to something along the lines of Template:Infobox NCAA Division I FBS season. The existing infoboxes summarizing the championship games could be pushed further down the page to a section covering the playoff tournament. On point II, when articles like 1973 college football season were first written, the intent was for them to cover all college football for 1973 with a focus on NCAA Division I. We do see sections there titled "Other champions", which briefly summarize the lower divisions. If we move 1973 college football season to 1973 NCAA Division I football season, those section should be eliminated. Perhaps, a see also section could provide links to pages for the 1973 lower division seasons, although the NCAA links are already present via Template:NCAA football season navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to season articles. At one point we were creating season articles for each conference in the NAIA. If we have abandonded that then I could be persuaded to agee. But bear in mind that there are conference season articles in existence, so to me it makes sense to have the championship separate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jweiss11 for formatting my bullets. In regards to the season articles for NAIA, I would compare that to many of the D2 and D3 articles in existence. A brief summary of the season with a national POY winner. Outline of conference champions, Conference standings (when created for that year) and the playoffs. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to participate on point 2, I have requested a move on Talk:1977 college football season#Requested MoveUCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dirtlawyer1, this is the "overall proposal".UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A new editor may need help

Hello, I have noticed that User:12345yhu is making questionable edits, such as [2] and [3]. I believe that although this editor is well intentioned , we may need to make certain they are helping and not hindering the flow of an article. I don't believe I am experienced enough to be a very helpful wikieducator, as I am also asking many basic questions myself. Needless to say some of his/her work needs to be watched.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to cities whose state is omitted from their article title

Doesn't this constitute unnecessary overlinking? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, as far as the article goes, it should be linked as [Cleveland|Cleveland, Ohio] not [Cleveland], [Ohio] The infobox I don't think is that much of a problem. Obama's infobox has Honolulu, Hawaii While W's has New Haven, ConnecticutUCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the MOS tell us only to link to most germane articles? Why do Cleveland and Hawaii, cities so prominent they are titled without their state, need a supporting, extra wikilink to the state, while more minor cities like New Haven, or cities with more ambiguous names, don't? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would usually just encode as [[Cleveland, Ohio]] per WP:NOPIPE. Why are people obsessed with avoiding redirects? I avoid individually linking to the state as it's the city most are interested in; the city article would have a link to the state for those wanting more info on the state. This seems akin to WP:SPECIFICLINK.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Bagumba makes since. I was only pointing out that it isn't clear cut, unlike that IP who called my revert of them adding Saturdays to the CFB schedule to 2014 Ohio State "vandalism."-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The example given at WP:NOPIPE is of a related subject X that redirects to article Y, and links are accepted to X in order to gauge if a separate article X is warranted. This is not the case with "Cleveland, Ohio" versus "Cleveland" - there will never be separate articles for Cleveland, Ohio and Cleveland. Therefore I agree with the principle of avoiding redirects and thus linking directly to Cleveland. (Furthermore, if the article is at Cleveland why do our links say Cleveland, Ohio?)--162.239.239.5 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN: "Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form." What is the rationale to making the text more complicated than it really needs to be?—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba. [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] isn't corrected (why the {{city-state}} template (or whatever it was called) was discontinued). I also think for clarity when editing, it should be [[Cleveland, Ohio]] (with a redirect) instead of [[Cleveland|Cleveland, Ohio]]. There is a greater chance of typo-ing the right hand side of the pipe and not noticing it because it won't be a redlink. If you typo Clevland, Ohio, then it will be noticed sooner because it will be red. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've invited Ryecatcher773, the editor of the diff Jweiss11 provided, to help form a consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I already weighed in on Jweiss's talk pages a couple of days ago, but just to confirm: [[Cleveland, Ohio]] is the preferred form of link for American cities for reasons of specificity and consistency. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Days of the week do or don't belong in schedules?

See the 2014 Ohio State Buckeyes football team in regards to my question.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, no, it's TMI, and these tables are wide enough already. Frankly, once you have the date, it's an easy enough thing to look up, anyways. If someone wants to include it in the article somewhere, I'd say the place to do it is in the "Game notes" section of the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The season record tables are already too damn wide and are prone to line-wrapping on smaller monitors and handhelds. We need to stop trying to add unnecessary details to the tables, further widening them and exacerbating the line-wrap problem. So, no, we do not want to include the days of the week on which the games were played; the date is sufficient. As EJ suggested, include the days of the week in the box score/game notes if you're feeling compelled. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

CFP ranking in season articles

Now that the season is over, should we leave the last College Football Playoff ranking in team articles' infoboxes, even though there is no new CFP ranking based on the bowl game results? 2014 UCLA Bruins football team has been reverted multiple times on this issue.—Bagumba (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have not been involved in this issue. It seems like it's inconsistent with AP and Coaches poll, which accounts for the whole season, which would be confusing to have in an infobox. As it is detailed at 2014_UCLA_Bruins_football_team#Rankings, and is available at 2014 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings, I would think it doesnt belong in infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems pretty clear that a de facto consensus exist on Wikipedia at the moment. The Poll seems to have been removed from most teams, including the 4 teams in the playoff itself. Since it's pretty clear how this should be handled (match the rest of Wikipedia unless someone can show a good reason to change all the articles... which is doubtful since the poll won't reflect the postseason...), it's also pretty clear that user Ucla90024 will do the opposite of that, as is usual. Embowaf (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Embowaf, yes, you are right, and that's also consistent with how the BCS rankings are treated for the seasons in which they applied. I agree also about Ucla90024. He's not easy to deal with. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Exclude CFP rankings from the infobox, please. The CFP rankings are only relevant if the particular team was ranked among the top four or on the bubble, and that can be discussed in the main body text of the article. Of course, there are no final CFP rankings because the championship was determined on the field, just like the BCS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss naming convention for TCU athletics

I just started a discussion at Talk:TCU Horned Frogs and Lady Frogs#Name change in order? to determine if the TCU women's programs – specifically basketball – still go by the "Lady Frogs" name or if they have transitioned to "Horned Frogs." Not a football discussion per se, but these articles are intimately tied with all existing college sports projects. Please chime in. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Penn State's vacated wins

There's a settlement in the works between the NCAA and Penn State that would restore Penn State's 111 vacated wins from 1998 through 2011; see: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-reaches-proposed-settlement-corman-lawsuit. Seems this still has a proposed/pending status, but the IPs and newbies are going wild with edits to reflect that this is a fait accompli. How do we best handle this? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's too overwhelming a task I would just revert with an edit summary that says something like, "still proposed - let's make this edit when final" and see how well that works. JohnInDC (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Though it seems pretty firm at this point: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored JohnInDC (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request a semi-protect lockdown for starters. At least we can negotiate with newbie registered users; most of the IPs never respond to attempts to engage them. You might also want to consider using Bagumba's pending transaction template at the top of the page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, protect which pages? There's quite a long list of articles affected by this: Joe Paterno, Penn State child sex abuse scandal, Penn State Nittany Lions football, Penn State Nittany Lions, Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno (in the Big Ten), each season article from 2002 to 2011, articles for each of the seven vacated bowl victories (e.g. 1999 Outback Bowl), List of Penn State Nittany Lions football seasons, List of Penn State Nittany Lions bowl games, List of Big Ten Conference football champions, List of college football coaches with 200 wins, List of college football coaches with 100 losses, List of college football coaches with 30 seasons. That's 29 articles right there. JohnInDC, you can see that my initial effort to revert at Joe Paterno under "still proposed..." had already been swamped. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

From the ESPN link, looks like a done deal: "... Joe Paterno has been restored as the winningest coach in major college football history ... The NCAA announced the new settlement with the school Friday, weeks before a scheduled trial on the legality of the 2012 consent decree it will replace."—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, however this plays, probably best to keep our eyes on the affected articles for quality control. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bowl game articles are also of note for having the now false information ... at this point, are we in agreement that it is okay to start reinstating the wins? People went nuts on here when they were taken away in lots of places that probably weren't necessary (prose in players' articles, etc.), so it will be quite an operation to roll all of that back. Go Phightins! 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Phightins, not that hard if we proceed systematically: there should be a season roster list for each of the affected seasons that includes links to all of the notable Penn State players (and assistant coaches) who were members of the affected teams. The bowl games will be linked too. Jweiss has a pretty good working list of the others above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck everyone! You're gonna need it...--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Status of players entering NFL

Inevitably, some editors will want to educate readers that seniors and those that have declared for the NFL are no longer technically playing for their school anymore. What is past consensus on handling this from now until the draft? This edit marked Brett Hundley as a FA, which isn't true because he can't sign with anyone he wants unless he goes undrafted.—Bagumba (talk)

• @Bagumba: Clearly no CFB player is a "free agent" until he has gone undrafted at the conclusion of the NFL Draft. Traditionally, we have simply noted in the main body text when a player has declared early for the NFL Draft (with an appropriate footnote, of course). After the player is drafted or signed as a free agent, then we switch out the infobox, rewrite the lead, and add draft text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dirtlawyer1: Any convention on when (if ever) "school" gets cleared because the player is no longer playing for the school? Only when they player is drafted or signed as a FA?—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: We have left the college team showing until the NFL Draft takes place and the player is selected or signed to a free agent contract. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

What does everyone think about this edit? At what point does the 2014 season end and the 2015 season begin? Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the heading suggests that coaching changes made up until May 1 should be noted there. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Proper form of roster for season articles

Which of these should I use when adding rosters to pages:

2014 Florida Gators roster
Quarterbacks 3 Treon Harris – Freshman 6 Jeff Driskel – Junior Running Backs 15 Brandon Powell – Freshman 20 Darius Masline – Sophomore Wide Receivers 1 Quinton Dunbar – Senior 2 Ryan Sousa – Freshman 4 Andre Debose – Senior 5 Ahmad Fulwood – Sophomore Tight Ends 25 Gideon Ajagbe – Senior 30 DeAndre Goolsby – Freshman 39 Ryan Ferguson – Freshman		Offensive Line 51 Antonio Riles – Freshman 52 Travaris Dorsey – Freshman Defensive Line 6 Dante Fowler, Jr. – Junior 8 Leon Orr – Senior Linebackers 3 Antonio Morrison – Junior 9 Matt Rolin – Freshman 11 Neiron Ball – Senior Defensive Backs 1 Vernon Hargreaves III – Sophomore 2 Jabari Gorman – Senior 5 Jalen Tabor – Freshman 7 Duke Dawson – Freshman		Placekickers 16 Austin Hardin – Sophomore 95 Francisco Velez – Senior 97 Brooks Abbott – Sophomore 98 Jorge Powell – Freshman Punters 4 Kyle Christy – Senior 19 Johnny Townsend – Sophomore Long Snappers 43 Kyle Crofoot – Junior 46 Drew Ferris – Senior

OR

2014 Auburn Tigers football team roster
Players			Coaches
Offense etc. Pos. # Name Class WR 1 D'haquille Williams Jr WR 3 Dominic Walker  Fr WR 4 Quan Bray Sr WR 5 Ricardo Louis Jr QB 6 Jeremy Johnson So	Defense etc. Pos. # Name Class DT 1 Montravius Adams So CB 3 Jonathan Jones Jr CB 6 Jonathan Mincy  Sr LB 8 Cassanova McKinzy Jr S 9 Jermaine Whitehead Sr	Special teams etc. Pos. # Name Class P 27 Rice Logan  Fr P 28 Jimmy Hutchinson  Fr P 29 Tyler Stovall  Fr K/P 38 Daniel Carlson  Fr K 39 Alex Kviklys Jr	Head coach Gus Malzahn – 2nd year Coordinators/assistant coaches Rodney Garner (Associate head coach / Defensive Line) – 2nd year Rhett Lashlee (Offensive Coordinator / Quarterbacks) – 2nd year Dameyune Craig (Co-Offensive Coordinator / Wide Receivers) – 2nd year Ellis Johnson (Defensive Coordinator / Linebackers) – 2nd year Charlie Harbison (Co-Defensive Coordinator / Safeties) – 2nd year Scott Fountain (Special Teams / Tight Ends) – 2nd year Tim Horton (Running Backs) – 2nd year J.B. Grimes (Offensive Linemen) – 2nd year Melvin Smith (Cornerbacks) – 2nd year Ryan Russell (Strength and Conditioning) – 2nd year Legend (C) Team captain (S) Suspended (I) Ineligible Injured Redshirt Roster Last update: August 26, 2014

If it's the second one, how do I link to an article that isn't just the player's name (for example, with (American football) as part of the article name).

Another question would be how to denote redshirting players. The redshirt icon is used for people who are redshirt freshman (IE, freshmen who have used their redshirt). I would think that a true freshman who didn't play and took a redshirt year should be listed on the pages, because he is on the roster, but maybe should be denoted (red text maybe?) as someone who used a redshirt year and didn't play. Jhn31 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Jhn31, please use the second, template-based format. The template documentation here explains how to deal with articles that are titled with parenthetical disambiguation. Use the "dab" field. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will use the second one exclusively. I think it's still a little ambiguous with the redshirt icon, though. The link you provided implies that the redshirt icon should be used if the player is using a redshirt that year (which would generally be for a true freshman sitting out their first year). However, actually using the icon puts the redshirt icon in the player's class column, which implies it's to indicate that such-and-such-player is a Redshirt Sophomore or whatever. I think we should somehow denote players who redshirt the season. While they are technically on the roster, if they redshirt the season, they never play and don't make any notable impact. Maybe listing them all at the bottom separately somehow would be the key? Or else some other kind of icon/designation? Jhn31 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with List of NC State Wolfpack football seasons

Who wants to show NC State some love and help me cleanup and finish the List of NC State Wolfpack football seasons. I'm trying to merge the division and conference standings column together and I don't have the technical knowhow. Also I'm looking to add a new column for final conference standing that's separate from overall record, as well as filling out the said information.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Thanks.

Prisencolinensinainciusol, thanks for your efforts here. There's actually a discussion going on right now about the format of these lists. You might want to take a look and jump in here. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry article move

Was there a discussion to move the Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry to the Paul Bunyon Trophy? I know the talk page had it moved to the UM-MSU football rivalry article but wasn't sure about this move. User:Vjmlhds moved it without giving an explanation as to why it was moved. (See here) I'm sure you guys see it in your watch list. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 17:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the current thinking is that such rivalries should be listed under the name of the rivalry or the trophy. I'd think a hard-and-fast rule would be problematic anyhow in that, in some cases, the trophy may not be as well known as the rivalry is, and to my mind, thus not as suitable as the article title. I would be interested in learning more. Also, if the decision is made to retain this particular article under the new trophy name, the article will need to be moved to the correct spelling of "Paul Bunyan". JohnInDC (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently a couple of years ago the article was moved (after brief discussion) from Paul Bunyan to UM-MSU rivalry for reasons including the fact that the series had been played for 65 years before the trophy came into existence. In light of the prior discussion and consensus (however quick the discussion), the move should have been discussed first. I am inclined to move it back. JohnInDC (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Same thing, Michigan–Minnesota football rivalry and Little Brown Jug (college football trophy). JohnInDC (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've move the Little Brown Jug (college football trophy) article back to Michigan–Minnesota football rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 moved the Paul Bunyon Trophy article back to Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. It should remain at those names until it is discussed further. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I restored the article to its previous consensus title, with the following edit summary: "The trophy is not the rivalry. The rivalry is notable, the trophy barely so. Please do not attempt to move again without discussing it at the article talk page and/or WT:CFB." I also left a follow-up message for Vjmhlds, seconding the message that John had already left there. The overwhelming majority of CFB rivalry game articles should follow the established pattern, and most have already been moved to such titles. Moreover, in most cases, the trophy article for a particular rivalry has already been merged with the parent rivalry article. Even if notable, most trophies do not require more than a paragraph or two to describe them, and they are usually better incorporated into the parent article. Thanks for jumping on this, Corky and John. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• FYI, I just noticed that Paul Bunyan's name was misspelled in the move as "Paul Bunyon." Another reason to discuss prior to moves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with moving the Paul Bunyan article to UM-MSU, but strenuously disagree with moving Little Brown Jug to UM-Minnesota. The Little Brown Jug is one of the truly iconic trophies and the series between UM-Minn. is virtually always referred to as the Little Brown Jug game. The predominant name should cotrol. This should not be moved hastily without full discussion on the applicable talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Michigan-Minnesota was removed away from Little Brown Jug a year and a half ago. Not much discussion - see Talk:Michigan–Minnesota_football_rivalry#Requested_move - but there was some at least. The article has been stable in its current (Michigan-Minnesota) location for 18 or so months and I think that a move back to Little Brown Jug requires reopening of the prior discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Cbl62: The "Little Brown Jug" may be one of the handful of exceptions to the general rule. I remember my older, high school age brothers talking about the trophy game when my family lived in central Ohio for several years during the mid-1960s (and I was 6 or 7), and no one in my immediate family attended either Michigan or Minnesota. That having been said, John is right regarding process: it needs to be discussed in light of existing consensus. Feel free to start that RfM discussion on the talk page, and I will add my two cents in support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how that could really be called an "existing consensus." An IP user proposed a move, nobody commented on it one way or the other (not sure how I missed it), and the article was moved without any real discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I opened a formal move request. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A few eyeballs would help

User:Wkoppel began life as an anon editor and created an account in October 2013. He edits only college sports articles (at least as far as I can tell) and I am sure you've seen his name crop up on pages you've got watchlisted. He seems to know a lot about the subject area, and is quite prolific. The problem is that he is sloppy - he supplies edit summaries only occasionally, introduces dab errors, and many of his edits are entirely unsourced. Poor sourcing is of course suboptimal in and of itself - college sports are heavily covered, and sources are usually easy to come by - but worse is that from time to time the information he provides is just wrong. See his Talk page, as well as the earlier IP page, for some examples. He is entirely uncommunicative - not one of his 1,800 edits is to a Talk page - and in a year and a half he doesn't seem to have improved much. I previously raised his behavior at WP:ANI and WP:EAR and , where the issue gained only limited traction. As far as I can tell, he is not malicious, and to be fair, many of his edits are sound ones; and the broad response to my queries can probably be described as "well, just keep an eye on him".

I revert him when I notice sketchy changes on the half-dozen or so CFB pages I've got watchlisted, but his editing goes far beyond those, and I'm in no position to identify errors he may make in articles about teams that I'm not familiar with. If other CFB editors could just keep a loose eye on him, bearing in mind that his edits may easily be wrong, I think it'd help keep information in the CFB and college sports articles reliable and correct. (And I'll give a barnstar to the first person who gets him to respond on a Talk page.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• John, your comments above are indicative of several related problems faced by the Wikipedia sports projects and experienced sports editors. First, the accumulation of fancruft and trivia that accumulates throughout most Wikipedia sports articles (and elsewhere) when those articles are not diligently maintained by one or more editors with knowledge of the subject, Wikipedia guidelines, and the basics of good writing. Second, the addition of unsourced material presents another very real problem for those of us who are determined to improve the quality of college football articles (and Wikipedia sports articles generally). Often, there is no way to quickly and easily verify the accuracy of unsourced material, and if we're not going to maintain the accuracy of our project's articles, what the heck is the point of the exercise? Third and finally, there is technical compliance with Wikipedia formatting and style guidelines per MOS, etc. This third area of problem edits is the easiest and usually quickest to fix for experienced editors

I think the larger point, John, is how we welcome, interact and train newbies. And that requires some discussion and follow-up. We're never going to train the drive-bys and most of the IPs, but we still have too many registered users on the margins of the college sports projects doing their "own thing" in ignorance of the CFB/CBB standardized formatting, Wikipedia guidelines and MOS, as well as the guiding hands of WP:CFB and WP:CBB. Perhaps it's time for WP:CFB to beef up its own WikiProject guidelines and create a welcoming project of our own to guide some of these folks into the fold. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't disagree with any of what you say. I think it's a good idea to have a way to channel the enthusiasm of the newbie editors who are interested in more than just boosterism. There will always been some problematic editing within these pages, because some editors really don't care about anything but insulting their school's opponents - but there are probably some good editors out there who just need to be properly cultivated, and a CFB-specific welcoming launchpad sounds like a good idea. That being said, however, I think this particular editor has placed himself beyond the reach of any integration efforts, and from the outset. He has been completely unresponsive (other than a brief period when he tended to use edit summaries), and continues to edit on whatever inscrutable path he has set for himself. Short of a block (which I think would be a tough thing to obtain here), it seems to me that the only thing to be done is to regard his edits with a jaundiced eye and revert them when he has introduced something we know to be in error. The more people who watch him, even passively, the better! JohnInDC (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's considered proper WP:ETIQUETTE for editors to respond to others. I left some advice on their talk page alluding as much. Let me know if behavior such as unverifiable edits et al continue without at least an acknowledgement of the concerns. We don't expect perfection, but good faith communication is a must.—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be interested to see if the direct approach works! JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw some more unexplained mass removals from articles today marked minor, all things the user has been amply warned about before. Still nothing from them on talk pages. They have been temporarily blocked as a deterrent. Editors can go look at recent contributions and see what needs to be restored/reverted.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on him and thanks for the update. JohnInDC (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

He returned from the block and picked up pretty much where he'd left off, with e.g. mismarked Minor edits and inexplicable content changes such as removing "defunct" trophies from a list of trophies over time, here; and as uncommunicative as ever. I don't expect him to change or improve ever and so I renew my request that other editors just - tend to him where they happen to see his edits, and rein him in when he oversteps himself. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To hopefully elicit a response so a discussion can begin, I've blocked the user for 2 weeks. The immediate concerns are major edits being marked as minor, and failure to communicate with others. Please communicate any future concerns, if any, on the user's talk page. The user will need to be able to work with others to build consensus, or realize that Wikipedia might not be the site for them.—Bagumba (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will, thanks. I wish - I wish he'd just learn to talk with other editors. He's very knowledgeable, and busy, and could be a valuable editor if he'd just learn to color inside the lines. JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Adams

I've been reverting the Vernon Adams page back to Eastern Washington until he's graduated, and enrolled at Oregon. Am I right in doing this, and if I am right should we protect this page so that editors will stop changing it to say Oregon until he's officially a student? DMC511 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a judgment call, DMC. What do relatively recent reliable sources say about his current EWU enrollment, EWU graduation, and future UO enrollment? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a week. Recent edits are unsourced on his current status.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Widespread changes to college sports program articles

User:Paulmec, an editor whom I have not previously encountered working on college sports, is making widespread changes to college sports program articles (e.g., Florida Gators), including rewriting the entire sections that describe the programs' national championship history. He has deleted long-time sourced text and explanatory footnotes, well established by article-level consensus, and is claiming to be implementing some sort of NCAA sports Wikipedia-wide uniform formatting. Apart from that, there are also numermous Manual of Style problems with the "uniform" formatting Paulmec is attempting to impose. I have reverted his changes twice on the Florida Gators article, and have invited him to start a discussion on the article talk page as well as here on WT:CFB. Despite comments on my user talk page and edit summaries inviting him to do so, he has not yet initiated that discussion. I am not aware of any initiative to rewrite the national championship histories, either on the sports program or conference pages, and I think input from people who actually know the history of these programs should be solicited and consensus determined before any more efforts to implement wide-ranging changes are implemented. If anyone knows this editor, I suggest you bring him to this talk page ASAP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DL, I'm not familiar with Paulmec either. I've looked at some of the changes. There are obvious formatting issues regarding capitalization and date formats. And he's been adding references that are raw URLs, which isn't very good. I think it's totally reasonable to roll back all of these edits and start a discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

JW, I would feel more comfortable if I were not the only one doing the reversions. I'm also pretty sure that using the "rollback" function is not appropriate for reverting good-faith, non-vandalism edits. If you want to start reverting the most recent edits, with an edit summary requesting Paulmec discuss these changes here at the WP:CFB talk page, I will start reverting the oldest changes with the same edit summary. I've left user talk page messages for Bagumba, Rikster and Jrcla, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I also just left a message for Paulmec on his user talk page, requesting he discuss his edits here, making the discussion invitation difficult to miss. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI it's not me and I've had no contact with the editor that I can recall.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DL, I was using "roll back" in a general, informal sense. I guess I should have said "revert" or "undo". I don't really know much about the technical Rollback feature. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I have the "rollback" bit, but I don't find it that useful except for overt vandalism, etc., because of the limitations on its use, and it's effectively the same function as revert. Administrators apparently have a better version that permits them to roll back all edits of a given editor for defined periods of time -- kinda handy if you're dealing with a serial vandal on a tear. Our Paulmcdonald (not to be be confused with Paulmec) could probably explain more.

I've reverted his recent edits to a half dozen high-profile articles. Would you care to revert the changes to the half dozen most recently modified articles which I haven't already? That should be enough to make the point without engaging in some sort of mass edit war. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think at this point we need to wait for his response ... there is a strong possibility he is (misguidedly) acting in good faith. It's a little bit of wait and see at this point. If he continues to make edits w/o response, we can look at other options including ANI, which may lead to a temp block to catch his attention, but as mentioned, for now, let's wait and see. Go Phightins! 13:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's certainly good faith editing. He just not doing a good job. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is user User:Paulmec and you guys are correct, that I am (misguidedly) acting in good faith. I will not make any further edits until we are in agreement. My goal was to standardize the National Champions section for all of the Power 5 conference schools. I looked at the format that the Pac-12 and Big Ten used and only slightly modified it. You can see that the reference that I used points to the Ncaa.org overall records web site. Additionally, my goal was for the number of championships on the NCAA web site to match exactly with Wikipedia. I started off in the Big Ten and for those schools that didn’t have a National Champions section, I created one. I then moved to the Pac-12 and did the same. There was not much opposition to those conferences because football is not as critical as it is in the SEC. This is an issue, because in football, only FCS championships are recognized by the NCAA. Here is an example of my logic for page flow: Go to ‘Big_Ten_Conference#NCAA_national_titles’ and click on ‘Nittany Lions’ in the Nickname column. This will take you to the ‘National team championships’ section for Penn State. As you can see, the number of championships in this section rolls up to the Penn State row on the Big Ten page that you were just in. Then click on ‘Gymnastics’ and this will take you to the ‘Team titles’ section of that particular sport. As you can see, the row for Penn State matches the row on the Penn State page that you were just in. When you follow this pattern, you can see that I spent a lot of time creating ‘Team titles’ sections for sports that did not have them. This included many of the Olympic sports such as golf, gymnastics, soccer, swimming, tennis, etc… for both the men and women. I think that I have listed enough info here for you to see my intentions. Please advise.

I'm sure Paulmec is editing in good faith but with another round of edits beginning and the continued removal of relevant "long-time sourced text and explanatory footnotes" is, in my interpretation, coming very close to vandalism. I have the PAC-12 Conference page on my watchlist and his edits have been reverted 3 times now (once by Dirtlawyer1 and twice by myself), and I plan to fix the PAC-12 team pages in the near future. The problems I am seeing, along with the removal of relevant info, is the formatting visually, the unnecessary over-linking, and the info being entered does not match the info from the source being used. I truly don't intend to criticize another editor, just bringing the topic back to attention and throwing in my thoughts Msjraz64 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Msjraz64: Hey. I just saw your comment. I've been trying to circle back to respond to Paulmec's comment above for the last week, but I've been consumed with other wiki-adventures and real world work. I have several issues with Paulmec's handiwork, but I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it as vandalism. Well-intended edits with issues, but not vandalism. I'll try to follow up tomorrow with some more specific comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Yes we all have a life beyond wiki. I couldn't think of a better word at the moment besides vandalism but maybe somewhere in the 'non-constructive-edit' range. My terminology is probably wrong since I really don't venture out of my little area (NCAA D2, NAIA) to much. Paulmec has a good idea but it's just not coming out quite right. Apologies for sounding to be harsh; after nearly four years, I'm still learning how to do things here. Msjraz64 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD for non-notable CFB rivalry game: Auburn–Tulane

I have opened a new Articles for Deletion discussion regarding the Auburn–Tulane football rivalry article here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tulane football rivalry. All WP:CFB participants (and other interested editors) are invited to this AfD discussion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here I contend is an easier one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Florida State football rivalry. Cake (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really, Cake. We just "kept" the Auburn-Tulane rivalry on the basis of five (5) one-sentence mentions. That's not "significant coverage" by any normal measure; that's trivial. It was also probably the least significant rivalry game article to survive AfD in my six years on Wikipedia. Because the Auburn-FSU series was played in the 1980s, there will be more media coverage if you actually look. Look at the Google search I posted in the AfD for "Auburn-Florida State rivalry"; moreover, the one linked newspaper article you have posted so far in the new AfD for the Auburn-FSU football rivalry is more significant coverage than every one of the five linked articles in the AfD for the Auburn-Tulane rivalry.

We, as CFB WikiProject members, need to discuss creating a notability standard for CFB rivalry articles, and then we need to have a serious discussion about what the meaning of "significant coverage" is. Right now, we are being amazingly inconsistent from AfD to AfD, and the standard we are using for significant coverage is meaningless. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A clearer standard is worth considering, but I don't think we're doing badly or acting in an "amazingly inconsistent" manner. Since August 2014, and by my rough count, 41 rivalry and single game articles have been nominated. Of those, roughly 37 were deleted. Only two were closed as "keep" (Minn./Nebr. and Stanford-USC), and in both of those cases the voting was clear and overwhelmingly on the "keep" side. Only two (2008 Texas-Texas Tech and Auburn-Tulane) were closed as "no consensus". Both were instances where IMO reasonable minds could differ (there was, after all, a national wire story calling Auburn-Tulane "one of the keenest rivalries in football"). All in all, I think we're actually doing pretty good. Cbl62 (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cbl, let's stay focused on Auburn-Tulane for just a moment, where there was a lot of conjecture about a "historical rivalry," and the only evidence produced were links to five one-sentence mentions of "rivalry." Now, compare that to the first seven articles listed here for Auburn-FSU, and tell me if you can't discern a difference in the "significance" of the coverage? The first is supposedly a judgment call, and the second is a slam dunk delete? I think we got that reversed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"of the 80s" seems paltry compared to of the 20s-30s-40s. Cake (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My point was broader than Auburn-Tulane. That's one where you felt the closing admin got it wrong. I viewed it as a close call and didn't vote one way or the other. In 39 other cases, the results were pretty clear. That suggests a pretty high level of consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• FYI--I think we should avoid using the phrase "AfD for non-notable" anything in a discussion header. The purpose of the AFD is to determine the notability or non-notability of the subject, not to push an agenda.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

List of historically significant college football games question

Without attempting to fragment the First game in each state section. Do you think that the List of historically significant college football games needs a set criteria? I see a possiblity of a future edit war brewing someday if this isn't nipped in the bud, and clear rules are established. The list itself appears to be one that has multiple possible interpretations. One of which is that it must have a source that says that it is historically significant. Another could be that I think it is/isn't significant. Another could think that it is significant because of (X), yet another could think that a game is significant for (some unestablished reason). One editor adds games to it [4], and another takes away saying [5] "unsourced" (which I can agree with) and "it isn't significant IMO," which is a possible WP:OWN violation. This list is one that on the surface seems like it could be clear cut and it isn't. Full disclosure, I don't see the importance of some games, and I wonder how some aren't listed. But obviously what is significant to one person isn't necessarily significant to another. Long question short: What determines what goes here?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1:, @Jweiss11:, @MisterCake:, @X96lee15: @Bagumba: please advise.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a criteria (for better or worse) at the top of the page:

"Inclusion on this list requires games of significant historical "firsts" and/or otherwise significant impact to the sport itself, such as significant rules changes or initiation of long-standing ceremony. Historically significant games should be prominently discussed in major historical accounts of college football. Games that may be significant only to a particular team's fan base should not be listed here."

It's not the most objective criteria, but it's a start. I attempt to use that when determining if a game should or should not be included. What needs to be included are references discussing WHY the game is important, and not just about the game itself. Without that, then the game should not be included in the list.

I added "IMO" to many of the edit summaries just to show that it's my opinion and it isn't the "right" answer (since the criteria for inclusion are so vague). I'm open for discussion on the inclusion of any of the games I've removed. I think that's the opposite of OWN. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

For any list, a good check is whether it meets WP:LISTN. I dont see it with the current criteria. It seems like cruft, unless someone argues that this is really History of college football in a very crude list form.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to make a case for those which were taken off, if I may. Also, no hard feelings, I know bandwidth/etc is limited:

• 1903 Cumberland v. Clemson. The greatest team in Cumberland history versus the best team Heisman ever had at Clemson in Heisman's final year. It was one of the first postseason contests in the south, pitting the best team from the west of the south against the best from the east, and whoever wins would be champions of the South. The first half was Cumberland 11 to 0, and the second half was Clemson 11 to 0, for an 11 to 11 tie, making for a hotly contested Southern title between at least four teams. Heisman more than anyone pushed for Cumberland to get a claim. The game also features a lot of big named players of the day. It also adds bite to the 1916 Tech-Cumberland story imo.
• 1907 Vanderbilt vs. Sewanee. Effectively the SIAA championship game, both rosters were loaded and the two undefeated rivals meet. A trick double-pass play won the game for Vanderbilt, and Grantland Rice said it was the greatest sporting thrill he ever witnessed.
• 1917 Davidson vs. Auburn football game. Quote "one of the biggest upsets in Southern football history." A 17-year old Buck Flowers had his coming out party and assured Davidson would get the title of 2nd best southern team in the year of Tech's MNC. Davidson played Tech the closest of any team.
• 1917 Ohio State vs. Auburn football game. 1917 Georgia Tech is the south's first national champion. There are two other undefeated challengers - Pittsburgh and Ohio State. Pittsburgh was challenged to a postseason game but declined. Auburn fought Ohio State to a scoreless tie the week before getting trounced by Tech 68 to 7. It was very much part of the historical contingency leading to Tech's title, more so than any other game.
• 1918 Georgia Tech v. Pittsburgh. They finally got a game, and the North reasserted itself with a 32 to 0 victory which assured Pitt as national champions and ended Tech's incredible 33 game win streak including the 222 to 0 and many other lopsided scores. Tech had lost a lot from '17, though. Surprised to see this one get deleted I must say.
• 1925 Rose Bowl. It gets the Four Horsemen the title, but even a bigger deal was Stanford fullback Ernie Nevers leading the way and run into the ground, rushing for as much as the Four Horsemen combined. His entry in the Hall of Fame lists "1925 Rose Bowl hero." Sports Illustrated named Nevers the greatest of all time in 1962, in large part due to outshining the Horsemen. Most agree Nevers would have won the Heisman in 1925, which is really a huge statement for that year, meaning he would beat Andy Oberlander and Ed Weir, but that's how much press he got from running all over ND. Surprised to see this one go too.

Cake (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Before discussing each of the games individually, do we really even want the list on Wikipedia in general? I like Bagumba's comment. This really seems like it could be converted into a "history of college football" article. I think criteria for inclusion in that future article wouldn't be as stringent as this list. I'm for deleting this list and creating a History of American college football article. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose that, though would be difficult to write prose to mention them all; and so I still ask about these games mention in either this article or a new one. Cake (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This article appears to be the only article on Wikipedia of the form "List of historically significant..." and there may be a good reason for that. My inclination is that this list should be AfD'd or converted to a prose-based history article. The current form of this list makes it inherently nonobjective and a beacon for time-wasting debates about inclusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I can't say the other article wouldn't have the same problem, but otherwise I concede you make a good point. I have to wonder how a "History of College Football" article would incorporate the games rather than the rule changes, etc. Cake (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Cake, that is a good point. Note that we already have a Featured article for History of American football, which is in large part about the history of college football. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cake: It probably wouldn't be just about games, nor should it, as that is a very narrow scope. Anything in an article needs to be treated with due weight. It shouldn't be an example farm either of random games. Also, any "List of <subjective criteria> <things>" is always going to be problematic on Wikipedia, where there needs to be a consensus on how the subjective criteria is met. A better venue for these types of subjective lists would be like a Bleacher Report slideshow, on a personal blog, where there is only one person making editorial decisions.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly endorse Bagumba's comment immediately above. The more inclusive this list becomes, the more apparent it becomes that its selection criteria is highly subjective and nearly impossible to define objectively. That's a genuine problem that either leads to a list that is impossibly long or impossibly convoluted, or both. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply it should only treat the games, only that I struggle to imagine incorporating the games into a prosaic article or part of an article on the history and only see that with other things. Of course that just means a limitation in my imagination. I would endorse the project of a kind of history of american football which more narrowly focuses on the college game, but in a way that covers the ebbs and flows of the football seasons such that the games in an article like this get coverage might be cumbersome. Cake (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to be bold and convert this from a list e.g. into something like History of college football and slap {{Prose}} on it as a start? If not, this is a candidate for WP:AFD. Be easier to move the article now than tie up resources in AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree: convert it to a History of American college football, or send it to AfD.
  

On a related note, have references to all of those supposedly historic CFB games actually been incorporated into the relevant team and season articles? If the individual games have not been mentioned in at least the relevant season articles, I seriously question their historic significance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I may add what I can to the intercollegiate football section of the history of american football page in hopes that along with others it will grow into its own article. Cake (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is a list article that I started and I've largely left it to the community to determine inclusion criteria. I believe it to be a really useful list article... and a hotly contested one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Tennessee–Georgia football rivalry and Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry

The articles Tennessee–Georgia football rivalry and Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry are redundant. I'll leave it to someone familiar with this project's standards to determine which title (if any) is more appropriate, as well to determine whether a regular merge is sufficient or if a WP:HISTMERGE is needed. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Other than a paragraph re "notable games" in the latter, they were essentially identical; so after moving over a bit of information from the shorter of the two, I redirected Tennessee-Georgia to Georgia-Tennessee. (Neither Talk page reflects anything of substance.) I have no firm view on which team should be named first, and chose Georgia because, as noted, that article was a bit better developed; and, figured alphabetical order is good in case of a tie. JohnInDC (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a logical and excellent solution. Thank you! --Kinu ^t/_c 16:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC, thanks for the taking care of that. The standard is to list rivals in alphabetical order when naming articles, so you made the right choice. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Head coaching record sub-tables

What do people think about head coaching record sub-tables that break down a coach's record against conference opponents and rivals, e.g. Bill Snyder#Record against Big 12 Conference opponents, Garin Higgins#Record against MIAA opponents, Mark Mangino#Record against conference opponents? Seem like overkill or maybe statcruft (I think I just invented that term) to me. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I kinda like it. I feel like that's often a criteria used to judge head coaches, record against rivals. Jhn31 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I have added (but not the first to add) this to a coach article. I believe it is useful information per Jhn31. Coaches are often judged by how often they would beat a certain team.[6] However, I could see a slippery slope forming. What would we do in the case of coaches in the case of Nick Saban, who has coached at multiple schools within the same and different conferences, or Gary Pinkel who has coached the same school in different conferences? For that reason I could also be apprehensive, but even that could be useful.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't really get why they don't include the conference champion game in the head coaching record, which seems the only reason for having them. Cake (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cake, they do include the conference championship games in the total win-loss record, just not the conference win-loss record. The conference record reflects the regular season conference record, and does not include conference championship games. And that's typical of a breakout for regular season and post-season. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. I may be glad I deal in an era with few postseason games. Cake (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• The head coaching records tables already include a column for conference win-loss records by year, with conference subtotals for each team coached, and a career conference total at the bottom of the column. Providing a breakout for every conference team (plus non-conference rivals) is overkill in the extreme. To the extent any particular head-to-head records are noteworthy, they should be included znd properly sourced in the main body text.
  

Remember: the emphasis should always be on the article text, not another statistics table. Too many of our CFB coach articles consist mostly of an infobox and a records table, which is exactly the opposite of how they should be written (see, e.g, WP:NOTSTATS). I also note that none of these head-to-head tables are reliably sourced, and that presents another significant problem per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, yes, the table on the Bill Snyder article has been there for at least a couple of years, so you are not the first to add these sorts of tables. You make an excellent point about the slippery slope and complicated examples like Saban. To expand on what Dirtlawyer1 has said, we should have a minimal amount of standardized statistics in tabular form (e.g. the infobox and the standard head coaching record table), and any additional needed detail should be added to the prose of the article. The lead of Jim Tressel quite appropriately notes his 8–1 (actually 9–1 on the field, including the 2010 vacated win) record against Michigan. Do we need a table listing out Tressel's record against Indiana and Northwestern? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Re: "they should be included znd properly sourced in the main body text", does "they" mean the table should be included, or the infomation on the H2H rivalry should be exclusively in text.—Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside from records of a few key rivalries that can be mentioned in prose as needed, the full conference breakdown is overkill and truly where NOTSTATS becomes applicable. An entry in "External links" to a stats site like cfbdatawarehouse.com can provide that extra info.—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus here to not eliminate the sub-tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think it's no consensus, unless Dirtlawyer1 confirms he meant the tables should be included (see my followup above). Or Jweiss11, are you !voting to keep (doesnt seem explicit to me)? By default, no consensus would effectively result in it staying anyways, but we should be clear on its level of support.—Bagumba (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba: Dirtlawyer1, you, and I are all in favor of removing these tables, and I think we've given some good reasons with nods to Wikipedia guidelines. What Dirtlawyer meant is that any conference and rival records worth talking about should be mentioned in the body of the article. The support we've had for keeping the tables was "I kinda like it" and "it's useful." Jweiss11 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New rivalry table template

we now have a new sports rivalry table template, Template:Sports rivalry series table, which will eliminate the need for most of the single-use templates in Category:American college football rivalry yearly record templates. I have already started rolling it out since it seems uncontroversial. however, please do let me know if you see a problem.

• Advantages
  • Specify the team coloring once per table, rather than once per table row
  • Automatic shading of the winner based on the score
  • Automatic tally of total number of wins, losses, and ties for the series
  • Automatic multi-column formatting
  • Automatic row numbering
  • More readable source (in my opinion)
• Disadvantages
  • New syntax to learn (but hopefully relatively well documented)
  • Potentially less robust if you mangle a row (but hopefully such errors would be obvious)

if you want to see live examples, check links to the template. if there are no objections, I will continue to convert the rest of the templates in Category:American college football rivalry yearly record templates, then move on to others in Category:College football rivalries in the United States. thanks in advance for any feedback. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: I am entirely in favor of a standardized format for CFB rivalry series record tables. That having been said, I think we should get some feedback from WP:CFB members before replacing all rivalry series tables with a new "standard" format without discussion. I've looked at the examples provided, and I think they are an improvement over many of the several formats that are now being used for CFB rivalry articles, but -- I question the separation of the winner and loser game scores into separate columns which makes the scores difficult to read and discern at a glance. I think that combined scores should be presented in a single column in standard format with an ndash separator (e.g., 31–27); this is is the best and most common way to present sports scores for "at-a-glance" recognition, and it's also consistent with how we present CFB and other college sports scores in all other tables, infoboxes and text. Stylistic consistency is important for out articles, and at-a-glance readability in table design is also a primary consideration.
  

Does anyone else have comments, questions or suggestions for Frietjes' regarding her new format? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

the presentation format for the score is pretty easy to change within the module. the initial goal was to make the before and after nearly identical, but fix the alphabetical ordering, and auto-balance the columns. Frietjes (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the table format that I've used in the past on articles that I've created or substantially worked on. As you can see, I like to have all of the columns remain consistent throughout the table (a lot of the tables currently in use have each team's score jumping back and forth from column to column depending on who won the game). In general, though, I like the idea of one standardized table format to be used everywhere on all of these articles. Heck, anything that can prevent messes like this from developing can't possibly be a bad thing! Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This table does not address the event of a tie.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is it one column for the winning team and one for the losing team, or one for Team A and one for Team B? It looks like it's inconsistent on the ones you've already changed. Jhn31 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • as indicated above, there is a general lack of consistency, which is the main purpose of this discussion. however, to directly answer your question, the new template supports both formats. a reduction in the total number of formats would make things easier from a coding perspective. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have collected a sample of the common formats, and started a straw poll below. please append to the list if there is a common format that I missed. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

This is a straw poll to see if there is consensus for one (or two) column formats to use in these articles (don't worry too much about the particulars of the coloring at this point).

1. Winning team / Winning Score / Losing team / Losing Score / Series (example)

2. Winner, Winner Score / Loser, Loser Score (example)

3. Winner / Split score / Series (example and example)

4. Winner / Score (example)

5. Winner / Score / Series example)

6. Team 1 / Team 1 Score / Team 2 / Team 2 Score (example)

7. Team 1 / Team 1 Score / Team 2 / Team 2 Score / Series (example)

8. Home team / Home team score / Away team / Away team score (example)

9. Tiled boxes (example)

• Prefer 1, 3, 4, 5 or really anything but 9. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Strong preference for #3. If displaying the ranking of the losing team is determined to be an important factor (as indicated in the comments section, below) I would be willing to accept #7 as a reasonable compromise. I must also add that I have a very strong dislike for #'s 1, 2, 8, & 9. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• I like Winning team / Losing team / Score / Series. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• I like #6 the best. I don't really see the relevance of listing the series record at the end of every single year's entry. Jhn31 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would prefer something along the lines of [7] and along the lines of number 1 above.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll discussion

Note that the winner-only format would make it harder to show any rank information for the losing team (example), but otherwise all of the formats are roughly equivalent in terms of the "information content" (modulo the running series statistics). Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Question Would this standardized table formatting be used only for football rivalry articles, or for rivalry articles in other sports, too? Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

1904 Vanderbilt

Anybody willing to help me identify the players in this picture of the Commodores lined up in Dan McGugin's first year? I believe it is,

• on the line, left to right (right to left from offense's perspective): Owsley Manier, looking rather like Ted Bundy; J. Hamilton Brown; Robert C. Patterson; Stein Stone; Hillsman Taylor; Innis Brown.
• in the backfield, left to right (or right to left from offense's perspective): Either Sam Costen or Honus Craig (I believe it's Craig); Ed Hamilton; Frank Kyle (and behind him is Coach McGugin), capt. Irish Graham who played on the line usually; and Dan Blake.

One can compare it with the 1905 Vanderbilt University Quarterly and the other 1904 team picture with players labeled. There is obviously text below the picture but I cannot find it anywhere. Cake (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Abe Yourist – assistance needed

Hi guys. Abe Yourist is a notable athlete for having played in the United States' National Basketball League, for his multi-sport standout career at Heidelberg University, his professional wrestling career, and for apparently playing in the NFL. According to the Heidelberg source (#2 below) he played for the Chicago Bears for three games, as well for Indianapolis, Providence Huskies, and Cleveland Panthers. I cannot find any sources backing this football career up. Here are some sources I found for Yourist in general:

1. "Abe Yourist NBL stats". basketball-reference.com. Sports Reference LLC. 2014. Retrieved February 19, 2015.
2. "Abe Yourist – Athletics". Hall of Fame. Heidelberg University. 2015. Retrieved February 19, 2015.
3. "Abe Yourist, Former Wrestling Star And Professional Football Player". The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington: The Seattle Times Company. November 13, 1991. Retrieved February 19, 2015.

I was wondering if someone could assist in finding references about his football career? Or if anyone wants to take on writing the article himself (that would be awesome), I'd help in formatting the basketball player infobox / plug in basketball info as needed. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ohio Bobcats

A disagreement has arisen on the Ohio Bobcats article about a small section called "Notable competitors" that could use some additional views. If anyone can add to the discussion on it, please do. It can be found at Talk:Ohio Bobcats#"Notable" competitors. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of season schedule tables

WP:CFB members, please take a look at these threads: [8] and [9]. The changes proposed would affect the way we currently format all single-season NFL articles, and presumably single-season articles for CFB and other major sports teams, too. Your feedback on the relevant talk pages is invited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam Mayes

Does 2004 All-American Sam Mayes from Oklahoma State satisfy WP:Notability for being an All-American? And if so how could/would/should it adjust the article on a current soccer Sam Mayes?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As a first-team All-American, I'd say Mayes is notable. The article should be created as Sam Mayes (American football). The existing Sam Mayes article should then be moved to either Sam Mayes (Australian footballer) or Sam Mayes (Australian rules footballer). I'm not sure what the proper disambiguator should be there. There seems to be a mix of both, judging from a quick look at the subcategories of Category:Players of Australian rules football by nationality. You might want to check with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football. Finally, Sam Mayes becomes a disambiguation page. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Tyler Lockett's 2011 Consensus All-American recognition

According to this source Kansas may not recognize Tyler Lockett as a 2011 Consensus All-American. Are we sure he is one?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The NCAA does not recognize him as a consensus All-American. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lockett received first-team honors from only two of the five NCAA-recognized All-America selectors. Typically, three of five selectors are required to receive consensus recognition from the NCAA. The NCAA seems to make odd exceptions when no player receives three selections at the same position; I believe the NCAA looks to second-team selections then. Joe Adams was the sole consensus selection at kick returner in 2011. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks guys.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

First or second Southern All-American

In 1910, W. E. Metzger was the third southern player ever selected for Camp's [third] team. Owsley Manier made the team in 1906, and so must be one of the two left. Who is the other? Some sources claim Camp picked Reynolds Tichenor though that seems unlikely. Walter Council is another possibility. It might be that this includes honorable mention lists and refers to Bob Blake, or to them being merely from the South and refers to A. H. Douglas at Navy. If so, surprised Manier not a more known figure. Cake (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First football game in each state

It would be nice to have a list like this.

Date	Home	Visitor	Location	Final score	Notes
November 6, 1869	Rutgers	New Jersey (now Princeton)	New Brunswick, New Jersey	6–4	Organized football was first played in the state of New Jersey. Considered the first American football game ever played.
May 30, 1879	Michigan	Racine College	Chicago, Illinois	1–0	Organized football first played in the state of Illinois. The Chicago Daily Tribune called it "the first rugby-football game to be played west of the Alleghenies."
April 9, 1880	Kentucky University	Centre	Stoll Field. Lexington, KY	13¾–0	Organized football was first played in the state of Kentucky when Kentucky University defeated Centre. The first game in the south.
November 13, 1887	Virginia	Pantops Academy	Virginia	0–0	Organized football was first played in the state of Virginia. Students at UVA were playing pickup games of the kicking-style of football as early as 1870, and some accounts even claim that some industrious ones organized a game against Washington and Lee College in 1871, just two years after Rutgers and Princeton's historic first game in 1869. But no record has been found of the score of this contest. Washington and Lee also claims a 4 to 2 win over VMI in 1873.
October 18, 1888	Wake Forest	North Carolina	Raleigh, North Carolina	6–4	First intercollegiate game in the state of North Carolina. The first "scientific game" occurred on Thanksgiving of the same year when North Carolina played Duke (then Trinity). Duke won 16 to 0.
December 14, 1889	Wofford	Furman	Spartanburg, South Carolina	5–1	First intercollegiate game in the state of South Carolina. The game featured no uniforms, no positions, and the rules were formulated before the game.
November 22, 1890	Baker	Kansas	Baldwin City, Kansas	22–9	Organized football was first played in the state of Kansas.
November 27, 1890	Vanderbilt	Nashville (Peabody)	Athletic Park. Nashville, TN	40–0	Organized football was first played in the state of Tennessee.
January 30, 1892	Georgia	Mercer	Herty Field. Athens, GA	7–6	Organized football was first played in the state of Georgia. First college football game in the Deep South.
November 7, 1895	Oklahoma	Oklahoma City Terrors	Norman, Oklahoma	34–0	The first college football game in Oklahoma Territory occurred on November 7, 1895 when the 'Oklahoma City Terrors' defeated the Oklahoma Sooners 34 to 0. The Terrors were a mix of Methodist college students and high schoolers. The Sooners did not manage a single first down. By next season, Oklahoma coach John A. Harts had left to prospect for gold in the Arctic. Organized football was first played in the territory on November 29, 1894 between the Oklahoma City Terrors and Oklahoma City High School. The high school won 24 to 0.
November 22, 1901	Stetson	FAC predecssor of Florida	Jacksonville, Florida	6–0	Organized intercollegiate football was first played in the state of Florida in 1901. A 7-game series between intramural teams from Stetson and Forbes occurred in 1894. The first intercollegiate game between official varsity teams was played on November 22, 1901. Stetson beat Florida Agricultural College at Lake City, one of the the four forerunners of the University of Florida, 6-0, in a game played as part of the Jacksonville Fair.

Cake (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think this might be a useful list. There are those that would say it's all "oroginal research" because no one really has an article that provides such a list. I would not be one of those.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am open to the creation of a list article as described, provided each "first" game is properly cited to a reliable source, and with the caveat that an entry on this list does not necessarily qualify any given game for a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• ... and provided we sort out glitches like, the first game in Michigan being played in New York! JohnInDC (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that one was bad. Fixed that, and added all of these and others to List of historically significant college football games. Is there a criterion I should apply for those to add, or is it one which categorically prefers more additions? Cake (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the participants in this discussion have this page watched. However, for those who are reading this and don't an editor has removed some games without consultation, which I personally think are notable (e.g. first Big Ten Game, First Lehigh-Lafayette game, the Bacardi Bowl, the 42 Rose Bowl, and the first nationally televised game, to name a few.) I believe criteria should be clearly defined or else even more merciless or even careless (which I am not implying this editor has done) editing from others could add or whittle down this list.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I believe almost every damn one of these is historically significant. I just don't want to start an edit war.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, blue jay. Cake (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO these games should be in their own article (List of the first football game in each US state?) and not in the List of historically significant college football games. Is it the goal to add 50 games to the historically significant college football games list? That seems like overkill and would be perfect for its own article. If the goal isn't to add all 50, then what's the criteria to include in the list? That sounds like original research to come up with that criteria. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up in hope there is enough out there that it could eventually have its own article, i. e. of 50 or some sufficient number. Cake (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Started the article List of the first college football game in each US state; need to check the scores again later. Cake (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I have nominated Ron Cheatham for deletion. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated Greg Smith for deletion. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tenses in Season Pages

Hey all,

Lewisthejayhawk has been doing a good job of creating season pages for the upcoming season, however he continues to use improper tense when creating the pages, mixing up up both past and present when the introduction should be written in the future since the season has yet to start. While I assume he is editing in good faith, I believe he is ignoring the messages I've sent to him (and one that Jweiss11 left for him last month as he continues to make these new pages with the tense issues. At first I assumed it was a copy and paste issue, but he's done it for some 30 something pages now, and it's the same thing every time. And I keep reverting it every time and still I see no changes. In fact, another user ended up doing the same thing on 2015 UC Davis Aggies football team. I know he is doing a good job, but judging by the fact that he's been given three messages and, when confronted by Bsuorangecrush a few months ago about a different issue, was uncooperative, I'm wondering if there is any way we can try and get these pages to be created with the future tense rather than me having to change it every time, since I'm not sure if he is going to change how he edits them. Not too big of a hassle, but it would be nice if we could start using the correct tenses all the time. Those two messages to Bsuorangecrush are the only two he sent on his talk page, both unsigned. Has anyone been able to interact with him before? I know he's editing in good faith but he's continually making the same mistake and I don't think we want this continuing in the future. Mpejkrm (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The new 2015 season articles should clearly be written in the future tense regarding the 2015 season; obviously, however, there may be retrospective elements discussing the 2014 season or program history which use the past tense, or discussions of current coaches or players which use the present tense. As for Lewisthejayhawk, well, I can only wish you luck with that. Getting newbies to communicate on their talk pages can be difficult -- I suggest you leave a message on his talk page inviting him to join this WP:CFB discussion with a section-specific link to this talk page section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been an issue for a few years now. I highly doubt he will ever change. I'm pretty good at updating the tenses when I see them so I'll continue to watch for them and change them. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

All-conference teams

I see that at Category:All-Big Ten Conference football teams, a separate article is created for each year's all-conference team. However, season articles like 2014 Big Ten Conference football season already included this information. A spinoff to a separate article seems excessive, as it's notable enough to be in the season article itself. Alternatively, I would suggest a single list article that has all of the all-conference teams together. This would be useful for people that want to look at the All-Big Ten history in one place without having to click each separate article.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have spent much of the past month creating these articles and think they are very useful. The conference/season articles don't exist for 95+% of the Big Ten seasons and, if/when they are created, could reasonably be expected to have a shorter, abbreviated version. As for having 100+ years of All-Big Ten teams listed in a single article, I think that would be extremely unwieldy and difficult to use. For comparison purposes, see also Category:College Football All-Southern Teams. Cbl62 (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the content is very useful. It's the organization that I am think out loud about. How do you envision the info might be summarized in the season articles that would be different than what is in the all-conference articles? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Using the example of the 2014 Big Ten Conference football season, I would greatly reduce the length of the section on All-Big Ten honorees. I would do that as follows: (i) eliminate the "Honorable Mention" honorees as excessive, (ii) eliminate second-team honorees, and (iii) combine the display for "Coaches" and "Media" honorees. In short, 2014 All-Big Ten Conference football team could display the full range of honoree information, but the 2014 Big Ten Conference football season would be limited to a short, simple list of first-team honorees with a hatnote link to 2014 All-Big Ten Conference football team for those who need more complete information. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I'm more comfortable now understanding that it's not necessarily duplication given that 1) there is both a coach's and media team, 2) there is a 1st and 2nd team for each, and 3) honorable mentions can be added also.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

All-Pac-12

I recently finished the men's basketball's list at List of All-Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball teams. Was interested in moving to football, but realized that with more positions and separate offense/defense teams, a different format would be needed. Looking for precedents, I ran across the Big 10 articles; hence, my questions above. I originally was looking to reproduce in a single article the conference's media guide listing pp.122–128. Cbl62 reminded me above that there was (at some point) a 2nd team also that is not listed in the MG. Unlike the Big 10, the Pac-12 only has a coach's poll. For the Pac-12, I am proposing to have a single list with all the season's first teams. Additional details can either be in the conference season article or in a separate single-season all-conference article (like the Big 10 has). Any suggestions are appreciated.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Might be an ambitious project if it has the historical scope of the All-Westerns and All-Southerns; "All-Southern California" teams apparently have a long history. But then I don't know a whole lot about the history of football on the west coast. Eleven and then twenty two players in the same format as the basketball teams would strain the eyes it seems to me. What's stopping one from doing it year-by-year as the All-Americans? Cake (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive. A single All-Pac-12 article could give a historical first-team listing that consolidates all seasons into one view. This helps readers that wonder who else has been honored, saving them from having to cycle through each single page article. A single-season All-Pac-12 article is fine if it is needed beyond say what is at 2014_Pacific-12_Conference_football_season#All_Conference_teams. So there are three possible views: 1) season article with section on that year's all-conference team 2) a list of all historical first-team all-conference selection, and 3) a single-season all-conference article if WP:SPINOUT from the season article e.g. 2014_Pacific-12_Conference_football_season is needed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true; they are not mutually exclusive. I assume it's better practice to go year-by-year and then make a comprehensive list. Cake (talk)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Central Texas Sports, etc.

Template:Central Texas Sports and several similar navbox templates have been nominated for deletion. Given that the subjects of these navboxes are within the scope of WikiProject College football, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please contribute to a discussion regarding use of the name "New York Bulls" for the "Buffalo Bulls"

Conversation is going on to discuss this as either a valid alternate name for UB athletic teams or as an acceptable "also known as" for them. Please give your thoughts at Talk:Buffalo Bulls#New York Bulls. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

School colors on college football player infobox

Are there any quick fixes for those schools without the colors, say on the article of Herb Covington somewhere to inject a #CFB53B of Centre gold? Probably I shouldn't even bother about with it but it manages to irk me. Cake (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is at Module:College color/data. I know basketball uses it, and I think football has integrated to use it also.—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's it. Thank you bagumba. Cake (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few schools had colors at best closely resembling those given on their website. If some one reading this is more in tune with the schools west of the Mississippi he may wish to give it a look over. Cake (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Carlisle Indians football navbox

Template:Carlisle Indians football navbox has been nominated for deletion. As a template within the scope of WikiProject College football, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hopefully someone will make these pages. Perhaps due to the racial differences, though I am only speculating, I have mixed messages for whether to categorize Carlisle, a very important institution of early football, as a "Western" or an "Eastern" school - something which colors the whole discussion. 1906 Vandy over Carlisle might be the south's first win over the north. 1912 might be Carlisle's best season: got Joe Guyon and Jim Thorpe.Cake (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Kentucky-Centre College rivalry

I'm not thinking this is a notable rivalry, even within the context of it being historical rather than contemporary. What are others' opinions? Jrcla2 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The book “Before Big Blue, Sports at the University of Kentucky 1880-1940” by Gregory Stanley talks in depth about the rivalry between UK and Centre (also UK and Transylvania rivalry). I think it would be a starting point in helping determine the notability.09er (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Only to comment on the football history I know: Transylvania and Centre was a big rivalry - at one point claiming the oldest in the south (see: Stoll Field). Be mindful Transylvania was also (or at least sometimes) called "Kentucky University" while UK was called "Kentucky State", which can make things confusing. The Centrecyclopedia mentions UK as a rival from 1891 to 1929. Kentucky has student newspapers out there online; might be worth looking at their 1916 win over undefeated Centre (and 68 to 0) under John J. Tigert. From 1917 to 1924 Centre stood atop Kentucky football, and good luck to any southern team trying to beat Centre in the meat of that period. Likely a rivalry in this period, which is all I will comment on; and which it's hard to imagine isn't the focus of any article on Centre College football. Don't know much about Transylvania-UK rivalry in football, and only know of it in basketball due to its recent renewal as mentioned below by 09er. But, Kentucky is quite a border state, and since I focus on the southern game I would be not even a dilettante on Kentucky or U of Kentucky football history. Vanderbilt was considered as far north as southern football went (as far west as the SIAA went), and in various other contexts Louisville was used like the Mason-Dixon line. There are state of Kentucky-specific football treatments in Spalding's guides, if I recall. Another source that might be worth checking. Cake (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say that it's not a notable rivalry. Needs more than just regular play to establish a rivalry --GrapedApe (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there's also Battle On Broadway another Kentucky historical "rivalry," created by the same user. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After re-reading large sections of Before Big Blue (see above), I am confident it was a rivalry. The Book calls it a rivalry on five different pages. It also talks about other issues including controversial games, player eligibility disputes between the two schools, how the excitement of the end of the year game help save UK program, etc. As for UK-Transylvania (aka Battle on Broadway) rivalry. There has been a lot recently written about it since it been renewed. Including this article in the Lexington Herald-Leader link which states …“The basketball series between the University of Kentucky and Transylvania has remained dormant for more than 100 years, but at one time this rivalry was arguably more intense and controversial than any experienced in UK's history.”09er (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a different question. Why are the exhibition games listed/counted in the series' records? These games are not "official." Is it normal to have a separate section? I am neutral on all the other points.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's my thoughts on this. 1.) Centre College–Kentucky rivalry lists 44 all-time games, and Battle On Broadway lists 14 all-time games. That's not a whole heckuva lot of all-time matchups, especially for basketball. And, it's virtually 100% guaranteed that these teams will never meet again in the regular season. 2.) In relation to this, and going along with what UCO2009bluejay said, above, the exhibition games should be removed from the series record. These games are not official in any way, and are really nothing more than pre-season scrimmages. 3.) Given the extremely low profile that Centre and Transylvania athletics have today, I wonder if this whole thing might be better covered as, say, sections of some sort of "History of Kentucky Wildcats basketball" article. 4.) If these two articles are going to stay, we need to get some sources into them, ASAP. Currently, Centre College–Kentucky rivalry contains no sources at all, while Battle On Broadway contains only two external links, both of them to a blog/message board site. I understand the historical aspect of this, but, in modern-day, practical, terms, this is like writing a "rivalry" article between some Class-A Short Season baseball team and the New York Yankees. For some comparison here, check out the level of sourcing in Chicago–Michigan football rivalry, another historical rivalry that was interrupted and is no longer played because the teams are in different divisions. The way things stand right now, I'd say that both of these articles are ripe subjects for AfD discussions, unless someone wants to adopt them and put in the effort towards finding some quality sources for them, and getting those sources into the articles. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Was this posted already? Cake (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If I wanted to create a list of seasons

I have been thinking about creating season lists for several programs. Like Oklahoma State among others that don't currently have one. Which format should I use Oklahoma, Texas Tech or does it really matter?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It does matter. They should all be one format or the other. If you look at the history, you can see that the Texas Tech list had a format like the Oklahoma list when it was promoted to FL-status. Then it was just converted over and I don't think there was any discussion about that. Before we create more lists, we should bring the existing ones in line. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to help.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You were right to JW. [10]-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Which format will be used. Also the Oklahoma list was converted to the Texas tech format but I reverted it some time ago, as no one talked about changing it.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume that jweiss meant the Oklahoma format. I do have one concern other than the editors who adjusted to these becoming nuts over this. That is conference records. The Oklahoma/Alabama format doesn't have conference standings. The Texas Tech/Michigan does.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's looks like one editor was responsible for all or most of the conversions to the template-based format: User:Comedian1018. He tends to be a workhorse churning out season stubs and adding schedules tables, but he isn't big on discussion. There certainly are advantages to the template-based format, and I do think the lack of conference record is a glaring omission in the "Oklahoma" or raw wikitable format. My concern here is that a number of these lists were promoted to Featured List (FL) status with the Oklahoma format. If we end up making a change away from the Oklahoma format, I think we want to make sure it jives with the requirements for FL status, and then have a review of those lists have been granted FL status once they are converted to the new winning format, whatever that is. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to add conference records without making the tables too wide?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There could be a way to do that let me play with it in a subpage.The conference records are in the Oklahoma format--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 01:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the conference record in the OU format? All I would see under 2000 is 13 0 0 and not 13-0 8-0, 2014 is 8-5 no where do I see the conference record 0f 5-4.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok never mind I was looking at the final standings, I Will try to take a crack at adding the conference records that wont cause the table to be too wide.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok I think Ive come up with something that works and looks ok, take a look and tell me what you think and fill free to make any changes you see fit.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Support with a keyUCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Dcheagle, nice work. I'd make a couple changes in the season results columns. To bring things more in line with the head coaching record tables (e.g. Bob Stoops#Head coaching record), I'd put overall record first, followed by conference record, then conference finish. The conference and division finish columns can be combined into one. Just note the division either parenthetically, a la the head coaching record tables, or maybe it makes more sense to integrate that into the conference column on the left? Also, should we note conference championship game results somewhere? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you all like it, I will take your input and change the table around and also see if I can add in CCG results somehow, may take me sometime though.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do. I have a different question though. If all else fails and it can't work could the CCG be separate as it is now, or could it be deleted, or is it a must?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just an update on how things are going I've switch stuff around with the wins, losses, and ties which you can see in the same page above. I'm still trying to figure out the best way of adding the the CCG. It might be a few days before I can finish, both my son and wife have gotten the flu.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Would the OU men's basketball season list be something that could be a basis for the football format?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

After finding sometime in between taking care of two sick people, I think I have the table set up right tell me what you think.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, You did a really good job.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks hopefully we can get some more input before making any wide spreed changes.Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dcheagle, looks pretty good. I'll post the link again to your sandbox, so others can find it easily: User:Dcheagle/sandbox 2. I'd suggest a couple more changes. First, I don't think there's any good reason to italicize the conference/national championship years. Those are already indicated by color and symbol. Second, conference division (e.g. Big 12 South) should be noted somewhere. Third, I'm not really sure what the ^ symbols are adding. And do we even need the orange coloring for the bowl column? If a bowl berth was earned the field is populated. If not, the field is empty. Why do we need symbols and coloring to clarify here? Finally, let's be sure to punctuate all game scores and tied standings with an endash (–), not a hyphen (-). Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you also like it, As for the italicizing and color and symbols most of those where added because of the currently used tables key which I carried over to this new table, so they can be changed or removed if necessary. As for the punctuation that was just lack of sleep that will be fixed if we decided the new format will be used. Also Ive been working on adding the division finish just haven't worked all the issues out with adding that.Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to adjust these lists?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, I don't think anyone will object to adjusting these lists because we have no consistent prevailing standard here. We have a mess. Seems that where we stood a couple weeks ago, Dcheagle was going to clean up a few issues on the working model in his sandbox, but I don't think we've moved forward since then. Maybe you want to drive this home now? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What were the issues that need to still be worked out? Let me know and Ill finish the table off.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dcheagle, thanks for jumping back in. For the outstanding issues, please see my comment just above that starts, "Dcheagle, looks pretty good...". Jweiss11 (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok then all that can be changed. If we remove the colors for the bowl games do we want to carry over the colors for NC and CC over to the bowl or just leave it with out color. Now as for the division finish, I think I can add it in just not really sure how I'm going to go about doing it.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents here: 1.) Dcheagle, thank you for adding the conference records to the table. Frankly, it was a glaring omission from a lot of those lists, and I can't believe that some of them were actually promoted to FL-status with such a glaring and obvious omission in them. 2.) As seen in this example, I like the "NCAA Division" (or some similarly named) column, as it's especially useful for teams that have played at multiple levels of NCAA hierarchy. 3.) I agree with Jweiss' point that conference division should be noted somewhere in the table. 4.) I'm not sure whether or not we need to include bowl game results in the table. Keep in mind that most (if not all) teams already have bowl game participation covered elsewhere, either as a separate list article, or as a section of the main program article. FWIW, the bowl game section also appears to contribute greatly to the overall width of the table. Just my thoughts. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back to you so late. I'm glad that you like what I've done so far, as for the NCAA Div column I will work on a mock up with that added in. As for the bowl game results I'm a little iffy on there removal as they were in the table when the Oklahoma seasons article made GA but if more users believe they should be removed that can be worked out.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Whats changed/feedback

Seeing as this discussion has stalled out again I'm going to give a quick overview of what I've done and ask for some feedback. I have added conference records and Conference championship game results, moved conference/division finishes under the new conference results header, and removed the color that was shading the bowl results. I have also done a few minor changes that are not really noticeable mostly just how big each column is. Now as for feedback other then what the above users have asked for is there anything that any of you would like to see added, removed, or changed with the table. Also with the removal of the bowl games shading color should we carry over the colors for NC and CC over to the bowl or just leave it with out color.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Have we found something we can agree to?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't worked on it in a few weeks, its got a few things that need to be worked on. I would also like to see more feedback from other users before we make widespread changes to articles.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That sums up why I asked.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists in need of attention

Here is a list of seasons, lists that would need updating:

Follows the Texas Tech Model List of Arizona State Sun Devils football seasons, List of Arkansas Razorbacks football seasons, List of Baylor Bears football seasons, List of Carlisle Indians football seasons, List of Colorado Buffaloes football seasons, List of Emporia State Hornets football seasons, List of Florida Gators football seasons, List of Florida State Seminoles football seasons, List of Hampden–Sydney Tigers football seasons, List of Illinois Fighting Illini football seasons, List of Indiana Hoosiers football seasons, List of Kansas State Wildcats football seasons, List of Lindenwood Lions football seasons, List of Miami Hurricanes football seasons, List of Michigan Wolverines football seasons, List of Michigan State Spartans football seasons, List of Ole Miss Rebels football seasons, List of Oregon Ducks football seasons, List of Oregon State Beavers football seasons, List of Purdue Boilermakers football seasons, List of San Jose State Spartans football seasons, List of TCU Horned Frogs football seasons, List of Texas Longhorns football seasons, List of Texas A&M Aggies football seasons, List of UCF Knights football seasons, List of UCLA Bruins football seasons, List of USC Trojans football seasons, List of Utah State Aggies football seasons, List of UTSA Roadrunners football seasons, List of Washington State Cougars football seasons, List of West Virginia Mountaineers football seasons, and List of Wisconsin Badgers football seasons

Other possible issues with orthodoxy List of Buffalo Bulls football seasons, List of Campbell Fighting Camels football seasons (partial list), List of Charleston Southern Buccaneers football seasons, List of Charlotte 49ers football seasons, List of Coastal Carolina Chanticleers football seasons, List of FIU Panthers football seasons, List of Gardner–Webb Runnin' Bulldogs football seasons, List of Jacksonville State Gamecocks football seasons (out of order), List of Kansas Jayhawks football seasons (is a very different page), List of Kentucky Wildcats football seasons, List of Liberty Flames football seasons, List of Maryland Terrapins football seasons (inverted), List of New Mexico Lobos football seasons, List of Northwestern Wildcats football seasons, List of Old Dominion Monarchs football seasons (partial list), List of Pittsburgh Panthers football seasons, List of SMU Mustangs football seasons (partial list), List of South Carolina Gamecocks football seasons, List of Southern Miss Golden Eagles football seasons, List of UNLV Rebels football seasons, List of VMI Keydets football seasons, List of Washington Huskies football seasons, List of Wyoming Cowboys football seasons, and List of Utah Utes football seasons

Well, that is alot of lists that need attention. To meet MOS guidelines. I'll help and strike when I fix them.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lyman

The 1891 Nebraska Old Gold Knights football team was coached by T. U. (or T. W.) Lyman, apparently a graduate of Yale who also coached Iowa at the same time. Then, also, for Wisconsin just a few years later there is a T. U. (or T. W.) Lyman who was 4 years captain and quarterback, including the year coached by Parke H. Davis. Anybody who can parse the Lymans? Cake (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a connection but see also this former Yale player turned coach: John Lyman (American football). There was also a C. W. Lyman (Yale Class of 1882) who played football at Yale as a teammate of Walter Camp. Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if this helps but........This source (Ariel) states a Lyman played as well as coached for Grinnell then known as Iowa College (not the University of Iowa) in 1891. This source source states that a T. U. “Tule” Lyman played for both Grinnell (Iowa College) and Wisconsin and was on a team that beat Minnesota after 6 tries. Wisconsin first beat Minnesota in 1894. 09er (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help from all of you. I still haven't established the Yale connection if there is one: Theron Lyman. On the surface Joseph Lyman looks like a relative. Cake (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Try this link. Even with this, I am not positive that he went to Yale. 09er (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure "it is said" is annoying but I felt it should be added to the article with some caveat as I agree with your skepticism about it. Cake (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas vs. UT footbal stats page

It shows in the right text box that Arkansas leads the series, but it is Texas with 56 wins. Can someone please fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.24.150 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RM: Illibuck Trophy

Please see this. In the words of Huckleberry Finn, we've "been here before." Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Scope: Non-bowl games?

Perhaps I missed it but I don't see any place under the scope of the project for games which were not bowls such as say 1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game or 1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game. Further, if these do fall under this project as I assume they do, might one provide me with guidelines beyond the GNG for rules of exclusion or inclusion of historical non-bowl games? Thanks. Cake (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Cake, we generally try to push regular season CFB games into the season articles for each team, unless the games are historically significant. There have been a number of AfD discussions in the last year wherein various WP:CFB and other editors have expressed their perspectives on point. When I get a few minutes, I will link to as many of those discussions as I can find. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• From scanning List of historically significant college football games I might define "historical significance" as:

• rule changes and other milestones (1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game; 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game; 1892 Wyoming Seminary vs. Mansfield State Normal football game)
• Intersectional clashes with national ramifications (1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game)
• Sectional clashes with national championship ramifications (some of Dartmouth's victories over Harvard maybe; or any big 4 clashes might be of significance as much as the bowls for some years, or 1905 Chicago vs. Michigan; &c).

• Conference play, regional upsets, etc. could be confined to team articles. Though these are just first impressions to hopefully be expunged or added to by those discussions. Thanks again Cake (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dissent not everyone agrees with the assessment to push game articles into season articles for the team. I personally believe it to be redundant to have two entries for one event (for example, 2014 Kansas State Wildcats football team and 2014 Iowa State Cyclones football team when we could have 2014 Kansas State vs. Iowa State football game). To me, having the data in two articles instead of one is clumsy and cumbersome at best; inconsistent at worst.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's say we agree for argument's sake, Paul. What do you propose to do with the several thousand team season articles that already exist? And how do you propose to organize the tens of thousands of single-game articles that will replace them? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

They could be edited over time by enthusiastic editors. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul, you're missing the point: there are something like 750+ Division I football games played every year (127 teams x 12 games per team / 2 ~ 762 games). The vast majority are not noteworthy for anything other than the opponents and the final score. Wikipedia does not need another 700+ CFB stub articles per year that effectively duplicate the data in the season records table of the team season articles. And I can tell you most of those 750+ stub articles are going to fail a WP:GNG and WP:EVENT analysis at AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul, your suggestion is, frankly, terrible. If it's redundancy that bothers you, are you suggesting that we should also do away with all the team season articles? The season really is the fundamental unit of coverage of a team's history. Every major team sport on Wikipedia seems to be covered that way. And definitive encyclopedias, both online and in print, are typically architected around the season. Ideally that 2014 Kansas State vs. Iowa State game ought to be covered a bit differently in each respective team's season article with appropriate emphasis and context for each case. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first terrible suggestion I ever made! I don't advocate that every game get an article, but I also don't support deletion of existing articles about games either. As for the season articles, there is more to a team's season than just the games so there is certainly more to write about. As for the comment that "Im missing the point" (I'm not), I am well aware that there are a bunch of games each year. I'm also well aware that most of those games will not get an article written about them not because they aren't notable but because there simply are not enough enthusiastic editors to do the work in the first place. The phrase "Wikipedia does not need another 700+ CFB stub articles per year" is particularly troublesome, because Wikipedia doesn't "need" anything. It's here because we want it here. (there's an essay in that someplace...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Mcdonald: There is always transclusion to avoid duplication. However, there might be more interest to tailor game writeups to focus on an individual team, which would make it difficult to share. At the very least, we could share box scores through transclusions, e.g. Template:2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup Final LTU vs USA, to save on work and maintenence.—Bagumba (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am unaware of a method to transclude part of an article into another--I only know how to transclude a full article into another. If we take that approach (and I'm not saying we shouldn't, it might work well), we will still have to write a game article to be translcuded into two season articles. Alternate methods? I'm game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is partial transclusion as well. 2014–15 Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball season#Pac-12 Tournament and 2015 NBA All-Star Game#Celebrity Game use two different methods to transclude a partial page. The downside that I have seen with partial transclusion, which requires some inline tags in an existing article, is that some people don't understand what it does and just delete it, or they don't know to add their text in between the start/end of a section. Perhaps that can be overcome with familiarity and widespread usage. Otherwise, create a separate article that will be wholly transcluded.—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest we follow WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If a concept can be cleanly trimmed, removed, or merged elsewhere on Wikipedia, these steps should be undertaken first before some new article is created." If a single-game article was warranted, the new article would presumably be way bigger than what is in the season article, and there would be little duplication. Per WP:SYNC, we can do a partial transclusion of the summary of the game article into the season article.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• That's usually the tact I take. However, it does not tell me whether or not, say, if there enough sources, to include the Alabama's upset over Penn in 1922, or any other intersectional which drastically changed the year's outlook. Cake (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's an inexact science for sure. I would say if there is WP:INDEPTH coverage, especially if it is referred to years later as opposed to just routine game coverage, it's a candidate for a separate article. Separate game articles should not be an excuse to add trivial stats or facts that are insignificant years later. One part of WP:GNG that is often overlooked is that it is "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Cake, it goes without saying that any single-game article is going to have to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, which basically means significant, non-routine coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources and with continuing coverage over time. I'm not familiar with 1922 Bama–Penn game, but, in addition to satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT here are a couple of rules-of-thumb questions I would ask:

(1) Is this game historically significant to the culture, lore, traditions and evolution of college football generally?

(2) Is it widely recognized as one of the most important games in the history of one or both of the the teams?

(3) Does the game represent a truly historic first -- e.g., first night game, first forward pass, etc.? (Not, e.g., the first night game at Michigan Stadium.)

(4) Is the game widely written about in sports literature?

I'm sure with a little alone time, you could come up with your own working list of questions, and perhaps we need to create our own WP:CFB standard for when individual regular season games merit an article, and when they should be incorporated into the team season articles. I've been thinking about a WP:CFB standard for rivalry articles for some time, but less so for regular season games. Last time I checked we have about 75 regular season game articles, and, in my opinion, about 10 to 15 of those suffer from RECENTISM; I'd say stand-alone articles for 75 to 100 games of historic significance would be about right (less than one per season). Perhaps we should compile a list of potential games that we think are worthy for stand-alone articles for WP:CFB discussion purposes (and future article creation). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A list of potential games should be interesting – maybe that could put the list of historically significant games to some use. As for the Bama-Penn game, Michigan v. Vanderbilt and Bama v. Penn were the two big intersectional clashes for the south that year. Bama beat one of the "big 4," with Heisman as coach of the ivy league institution, and were expected to lose by 3 touchdowns. Aside from Flash Covington of Centre, which would have been southern champs without the Auburn upset, who broke a drop kick record with 6 field goals in a game and was the composite All-Southern quarter, the other quarterbacks from the south to receive Camp's honorable mention were Kuhn of Vanderbilt and Bartlett of Alabama. Not a coincidence. As it's the season before Wallace Wade got to Bama it's probably their first nationally significant win, and showing the foundation he had. You might know that Florida's first win of any national import was when they ripped the Southern title from Alabama the next season. The Penn win was the biggest in Xen C. Scott's tenure, who got throat cancer in '22 and in '19 and '20 narrowly missed southern titles. By the way, Georgia and UNC play again next season in the 'chick fil a kick off game' for the first time in more than 40 years and that game has the first (i. e. legal or otherwise) forward pass in 1895. Cake (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've put up some non bowls I feel should be there including the Bama/Penn contest. Feel free to nominate for deletion if they are garbage. Cake (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think 1894 Chicago vs. Stanford football game might best illustrate that bowls are prominent as intersectional games and not vice versa. Cake (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

University at Buffalo Stadium

With the recent run of the Buffalo Bulls in the NCAA men's basketball tournament, there's been a somewhat visible and concerted effort by a group of editors to change Buffalo entries to have the "New York" branding, including many of the athletics articles (as seen above in a previous post). Anyone who can contribute at Talk:University at Buffalo Stadium#"University at Buffalo" (also see the edit history), it would be appreciated. Seems like a pretty simple case of WP:COMMONNAME to me, especially since the article for the university is University at Buffalo, but maybe other editors have a different perspective. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Kickers

Should say the article on placekicker or Category:American football placekickers make any effort to reconcile the fact that drop kicks and placekicks were distinct and in a certain era both deployed regularly? Bill Fincher and Red Weaver were great placekickers (though doing both would not surprise me). Buck Flowers or Jim Thorpe if you prefer were great drop kickers (though their kicking from placement too, again, would not surprise me).Cake (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Short answer: Yes. Drop kicks were historically important in the early years of the game. Arguably, we should be linking to drop kick, not placekicker for some of these folks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is difficult as the position "Kicker" and the act of kicking from placement have become synonymous. Maybe you are right and one should just link to drop kick in the cases where this a distinction. Surely at least one should be mentioned in the article of the other. Cake (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• The drop kick was one of the great features of the early game. Currently there are categories for "American football placekickers" and "American football punters," but not "American football drop kickers". Of course, "drop kicker" was not a designated position in the early days of the game as players played on offense, defense and special teams. Dropkicking was typically an added responsibility for one of the backfield players, usually fullbacks (e.g., Pat O'Dea) but also some halfbacks (James E. Duffy (American football)). Unclear to me whether it would be appropriate to create a new positional category for "American football drop kickers." So long as it was not used to replace a person's principal position (e.g., fullback, halfback), I think it would probably be fine. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• The shortest way of spelling out the issue is this: As is, kicker assumes placekicker, but historically that is folly. Still mulling over how to attack the problem. As for cbl's post specifically, perhaps at the top of the category for drop kickers one could note that kicker did not used to be a separate position. He is quite right about the split duties between fullback and halfback. For reasons I can guess but have never really seen outlined, usually the fullback could punt well (e. g. Clarence Herschberger, A. Clarence Jones) and the halfback could pass well (e. g. Jess Neely, Lew Hardage). I assume the reasons are similar for drop kicks being a fullback's thing. I defer to cbl and suppose since one has to snap it to the punter it was more often with backs. However, if I tried I could name a superfluous many who drop kicked and were not in the backfield (Truxton Hare might be most notable. Hek Wakefield for one I could ramble about.). Also, in general, the end and quarterback positions were smart players with many athletic duties, and so it's one place to stick a triple threat. I would argue the heady status is still pretty well evident in the allure of the quarterback position and the myriad duties of a tight end, but one should "up" the latter considerably in the days before wide outs. I assume kicking from placement gives better accuracy and a drop kick the better distance? Cake (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Perspective requested for consensus on players appearing on NCAA basketball championship templates

We are having a discussion about who to include or exclude from college basketball templates over at WP:CBB. It may be helpful to hear perspective from this project on how you all handle the situation where a player leaves the team mid-season, but was a key part of the team when there. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Rasheed Sulaimon on Template:2015 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball navbox?. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player

Overview

With 2015 NFL draft coming this Thursday, many articles will again be converting from using Template:Infobox college football player to Template:Infobox NFL player. Some editors have already prepped for this by adding commented out versions of the NFL template into existing articles. It's about as good of a time as any to see if we can reach a clear consensus on whether the two templates should remain separate or be merged. The most recent Tfd in December 2014 had no consensus, and the closer suggested that a venue outside of TfD might be more productive to discuss this.

I've made a first attempt to outline some major points from the last discussion regarding whether the college infobox is suitable to merge with the NFL infobox. Note the last TfD proposed a merger to Template:Infobox gridiron football person, but it was determined that Template:Infobox NFL player would be more appropriate, if any merge was to take place.

Some key points from the last TfD

Merge	Don't merge	Procedural oppose
Should not need to swap and repopulate templates when college player turns pro If one template can reasonably handle multiple variations of football players, it would be preferred over having multiple similar templates No need for similar football infoboxes to vary in visual layout	Mistrust by some sports editors of editors proposing merges of templates they do not use Need parameters for current and former college players that never become coaches or pro players Parameter names can be normalized across templates, making conversion easier without the need to merge Utility templates that support too many variations can become too clumsy to use College and pro templates should look distinct from each other	Template:Infobox college football player may be merge-able, but it would be with Template:Infobox NFL player, not Template:Infobox gridiron football person A merge strategy needs to be outlined beforehand outside of TfD Need to determine if it was a deliberate design to keep templates separate, and if there is still consensus to maintain the original rationale, if any

Parameter comparison between college and NFL infoboxes

Notes Basic common parameters name, image, image_size, alt, and caption not listed for simplicity. Similar parameters between templates are grouped together on the same row pos is position of parameter as listed in documention at Template:Infobox_college_football_player#Blank_template and Template:Infobox_NFL_player#Field_list, respectively. Listed for cross-reference purposes only. Template:Infobox college football player Template:Infobox NFL player Notes pos name pos name 1 school 1 current team 2 currentnumber 2 number 3 currentposition 3 position 4 class e.g. Freshman, sophomore, etc. 5 major Past discussion to remove 6 birth_date 4 birth_date 7 birth_place 5 birth_place 8 death_date 6 death_date 9 death_place 7 death_place 10 height_ft 8 height_ft 11 height_in 9 height_in 12 weight_lb 10 weight_lbs 13 highlights 35 highlights 14 highschool 11 highschool 15 pastschools 12 college 16 bowlgames Past discussion to remove 17 cbs External links to college stats sites 18 espn 19 yahoo 20 si 21 rivals 13 cis Canadian university 14 draftyear NFL draft info 15 draftround 16 draftpick 17 suppdraftyear NFL supplementary draft info 18 suppdraftround 19 cfldraftyear Canadian College Draft info 20 cfldraftround 21 cfldraftpick 22 afldraftyear American Football League draft info 23 afldraftround 24 afldraftpick 25 undraftedyear Undrafted year 26 expansiondraftyear Expansion draft info 27 expansiondraftround 28 expansiondraftpick 29 pastteams Teams as player 30 pastcoaching Teams as coache 31 pastexecutive Teams as executive 32 pastadmin Teams as administrator 33 status e.g. Active, Practice Squad, Suspended, Injured Reserve 34 cflstatus e.g. National, international 36 statleague League for displayed stats 37 statseason Season which stats are updated 38 statweek Week which stats are updated 39 statlabel1 key/value pairs of stats to display 40 statvalue1 41 statlabel2 42 statvalue2 43 statlabel3 44 statvalue3 45 statlabel4 46 statvalue4 47 statlabel5 48 statvalue5 49 statlabel6 50 statvalue6 51 nfl Links to NFL.com 52 nflnew 53 coachregrecord Coaching record 54 coachplayoffrecord 55 coachrecord 56 coachSB Super Bowl coaching record 57 coachAB ArenaBowl coaching record 58 coachchamps Championships as coach 59 pfr Link to external pro stats sites 60 pfrcoach 61 dbf 62 cfl 63 afl 64 HOF Link to Pro Football Hall of Fame site 65 CollegeHOF link to College Football Hall of Fame site 66 CFHOF link to Canadian Football Hall of Fame site

The college infobox has a few college-specific external link parameters (which might be reduced per WP:LINKFARM), and three other parameters—class, major, bowlgames—some of which have been discussed for deletion before. The NFL infobox has some parameters that are different, many of which are not applicable for college players (draft, coach, or executive related).—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Merge

Note: Branched from above discussion at #Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player by Dirtlawyer1's edit—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Some issues that need to be discussed are broken down below. Feel free to add more sections as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why Dirtlawyer1 chose to rename "Discussion" to "Possible Merge discussion"[11]. Seems less neutral, but whatever.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've refactored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dirtlawyer1

Issue 1: Would a merged template be usable

• No, the issue is not whether an all-in-one merged infobox would be "usable," but whether an all-in-one merged template for college and pro players will best serve the 2,000+ historical college football players -- including Heisman Trophy winners (e.g., Jay Berwanger), consensus All-Americans (e.g. Lee McClung), College Football Hall of Fame members (e.g. Carlos Alvarez), and other notable CFB award winners -- who never played a single down of professional football. Sure, we could use an all-in-one merged template, but that just makes the great CFB player of the past another adjunct to the NFL of the modern era. And for editors who think CFB is just some sort of minor league for the NFL, who don't seem to understand that CFB does have its own distinct traditions, history, character and fanbase separate and apart from the NFL, I'm sure that's just fine. As for those of us who believe that CFB is distinctly different from the NFL -- especially from a historical vantage point of the 2,000+ historical CFB players who are intended to use the redesigned Infobox college football player -- we don't want something that looks like another all-in-one generic infobox.

And that's really the point: not whether we could use an all-in-one merged template, but whether an all-in-one template is an ideal solution for 2,000+ historical CFB players. Hint: it's not. Let's use the ideal solution for historical CFB players that was designed for historical CFB players, not some so-so solution that results from using an all-in-one NFL/CFB infobox that subordinates great CFB players of the past to the NFL of the present.

Merging these templates creates problems for historical college football players who are forced to use an inappropriate professional sports template, with inappropriate professional sports parameters -- that despite the best of intentions of template "mergists" like Bagumba -- are easily imported into a college player template "wrap." For historical college football players -- including Heisman trophy winners, consensus All-Americans, Hall of Fame members, and other college players of note -- the emphasis should be on their college career information, not pro-based parameters like NFL and AFL draft rounds, draft picks, NFL roster status, NFL profile links, etc. The idea was and remains to intentionally exclude pro-based parameters for players who never played professional football: historical CFB players deserve to have their college career accomplishments emphasized, not muddied with pro draft information, etc., for pro football careers that never happened. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue 2: Should college and pro templates consciously be made visually distinct

• Yes, they are visually distinctive, and we should preserve that visual distinctiveness of Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player. A great deal of blood has been spilled to preserve the visual distinctiveness of Template:Infobox college football player, as was intended when the creators of these two templates designed them in 2007. Bagumba already knows this. The redesigned Infobox college football player is now one of the best designed and most graphically distinctive athlete infoboxes now available. It is unfortunate that Bagumba has chosen to initiate this merge discussion rather than giving WP:CFB the opportunity to fully implement the newly redesigned Infobox college football player for the approximately 2,000 historical CFB players that should be using it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue 3: Is a merge needed, or is normalizing common names sufficient

• No, a merge is not needed. Yes, the 18 parameters common to both infoboxes should have common parameter names to facilitate the easy conversion from Infobox college football player to Infobox NFL player for those current CFB players who are drafted and actually play in the NFL or other professional league. Articles for notable CFB players who never play in the NFL, regardless of whether they are drafted or signed as free agents, should be re-converted to Infobox college football player if and when it becomes apparent they will never play in a regular season professional game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose proposed merger of Infobox college football player and Infobox NFL player for the reasons stated above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• I would also have to vote Oppose. The NFL as the prominent means of football goes to 1970 or the late 60s and in the broadest sense the 20s with the likes of Red Grange, while college football goes to the very beginnings of the sport as far as we know. In certain years of overlap it might be relatively easy. But, trying to shoehorn, say, 19th century college football players into a layout designed for NFL players, even with similar parameters, seems quite the errand. Cake (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The layout of the two infoboxes is nearly identical, so this does not appear to be a strong argument. Alakzi (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually the appearance of the redesigned Infobox college football player -- with distinctive team colors, varsity stripes section headers and other graphics -- are significantly different from those of the present Infobox NFL player and its previous reincarnations. This was intended by the original 2007 creators of these two infoboxes, and I fought like the dickens to preserve that distinctiveness while we were going through the re-design process in January through March 2015. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I said layout; not style. I do not believe the proposal would entail the removal of the new header styling. Alakzi (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
        • It's identical if one leaves out or does not have information pertaining to the draft, stats, and so forth I suppose. And I would include 'style' in there too and say color. There also seems an accepted difference in how NFL players meet notability guidelines while CFB players have to have done something. It's also possible I am talking rubbish and have to defer to dirtlawyer and bagumba since Infobox NFL player definitely went through some changes during my time here. But I would emphasize that while the NFL might reign supreme in contemporary notability it doesn't get close in historical import qua football. I might emphasize "issue 1" and my opponents "issue 2." To digress, I see the NFL player infobox has a place for coaching which is confusing. Cake (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
          • The NFL coach and executive parameters (and about 60% of the other available optional pro-based parameters) of Infobox NFL player are intentionally excluded from Infobox college football player. By long established consensus, WP:CFB, WP:College basketball and WP:College baseball use a common infobox template for all coaches in all college sports (and not just college football, basketball and baseball). This forces a choice: whether to use the coach infobox -- which emphasizes coaching information, with limited player history -- or use the CFB player infobox -- which emphasizes player career history, with no coaching history. The choice in most cases is obvious. Excluding pro-based parameters is about simplicity of use and ease of maintenance: we don't want importation of inappropriate pro-based parameters into the infobox for a historical CFB player who never played pro ball. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Of course these two templates should be merged. Separate blank pro-forma may be provided for different use-cases. If necessary, a simple |current_college_player=yes parameter can be used to prevent the display of irrelevant fields. Claims like " that just makes the great CFB player of the past another adjunct to the NFL of the modern era" are pure FUD; a merged template will cater for all players. And we need not be bound by mistakes made in 2007. finally, why isn't this discussion at TfD? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course they should not be merged. As so often is the case, Andy, you view template mergers only from the perspective of what may be technically merged. Sadly, you don't have a clue what others are trying to accomplish, nor do you care. A majority of the editors who use these templates prefer that they be maintained separately, that they be visually distinct, and there is absolutely no policy or guideline that requires the merge. Moreover, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone by mergin these templates. None. Zero. That is more than enough to oppose their merger. Given the complete lack of any basis in policy or the guidelines, the only way such a merge can be accomplished is by the raw power of !votes. In the absence of policy or guidelines, it's an !vote, nothing more, nothing less. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • P.S. Regarding your proposed "|current_college_player=yes parameter," once again you display a lack of understanding as to what these templates are actually used for: 90 to 95 percent of the ultimate uses of Infobox college football player are not for current players, but historical players who never played professional football and never will play professional football. These are the great players of college football's past: Heisman Trophy winners, All-Americans, and members of the College Football Hall of Fame. This merge does nothing to enhance the presentation of those subjects to our readers. Nada. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • You appear to have !voted twice, Pleaase strike one. The benefits of merging such similar templates is - as you've been told before - explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Your attempt to expound on what I know and think, and consider, is bunkum. Please do not attempt to speak for me. Your final statement is false; not least because we haven't yet decided how the merge would be enacted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
        • No, Andy, I have not voted twice; please see my "oppose" !vote above. The benefits of "template consolidation," per your essay linked above, are outweighed by other intangibles in visually distinguishing two historically different flavors of college and professional football and implementing a uniform scheme of distinctive graphics across all American college sports. And, once again, there is nothing in policy or the guidelines that mandates this merge -- a fact that you conveniently ignore in citing your own essay as if it had authority to govern our decision here and elsewhere. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you want the two infoboxes to look different in more ways than the header graphics? Alakzi (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, Alakzi. As part of the planned common college sports graphics, we should retain all of the now-existing graphics of the revamped Infobox college football player, including the varsity stripe section headers, college team colors, the horizontal hairlines -- everything on which we spent three weeks working to preserve and enhance the template's visual distinctiveness from Infobox NFL player. Given (1) the desired visual difference in graphics, (2) the difference in excluded parameters, and (3) the need for different template documentation, one may reasonably ask exactly what the benefits in merging these templates might be? Too often "wraps" have been used as an intermediate step to merge templates later. And given Andy's vehement opposition to virtually every design element of the revamped Infobox college football player, there's not a lot of trust in the room on that score, either. This whole merge discussion looks exactly like what it is: the second bite of the apple to accomplish a merge and force a single template on editors who don't want it. Infobox NFL player is already too long, with too many optional parameters -- 60% of which are inappropriate for college football players -- and its documentation too long and cumbersome to be adapted cleanly for CFB use as a single set of instructions. Given the desired differences, there is no tangible benefit to our readers or the editors who use the templates to force the use of an all-in-one merged template. The fact that it's technically possible to merge them does not mean that it's a good idea to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
              • Apart from the header styling, why should the two templates differ in their appearance? What's the purpose of having a divider between rows on one but not the other? Alakzi (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                • Why? To visually distinguish college sports from professional football -- the same reason as the varsity stripe section headers and use of team colors. Apart from the desire of a handful of template editors to have a single infobox template for college and professional football, why should the infobox for college and professional football be identical in appearance? Please feel free to respond based on either Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                  • Apart from the desire of a handful of template editors ... I don't know if that's in reference to me, but I made no comment with regard to the merge proposal; I always try to hear people out before coming to a conclusion. So, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to silence me with seeking "policy or guideline" proof for what is - for the most part - a question of taste. Alakzi (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                    • It's not an attempt to silence you, Alakzi; you know me better than that. We generally work well together, and can be candid as required. My question regarding policy and guidelines regarding template consolidation, however, is a fair question to ask. Andy tries to dodge the lack of policy and guideline support by referring people to his essay on "template consolidation"; the best that can be said is that sometimes consolidation make sense, sometimes it does not. Here the goal is horizontal integration of template graphics across college sports, not vertical integration of college and pro piped within the single sport of football. And unlike most other college sports, college football has the critical mass in numbers of historical player biographies to justify a separate template that shares its graphics with other college sports, not with the NFL. As for the specific question -- regarding horizontal tool lines within the infobox -- the same question could be asked of the baseball infobox and others that employ similar graphics. Ironically, we probably need to adopt some other graphic refinements for Infobox NFL player, because its black-and-white version for retired players in its current form is pretty bland. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
                  • @Dirtlawyer1: I would not have a problem with NFL players' infoboxes having the stripes that college football players have. Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't look at the layout of an infobox and automatically recognize that this is a college football player, this is a cricket player, this is baseball player, etc. The lead sentence of the article tells me that. If recognizing the domain is important, I would suggest adding a field that explicitly states the sport and level of competition in the infobox. Otherwise, the "infobox branding" is not accessible, and I do not believe those without access limitations can anyways discern the difference without reading the article or knowing something about the subject beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Your "no policy" comment is yet another straw man; no-one has claimed that there is such a policy. Equally, there is no policy requiring two separate templates be maintained; or that arbitrarily different subjects must have visually different styling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Andy, please learn how to correctly use the term "straw man"; otherwise you sound horribly foolish. My criticism of your position is very direct, and does not require me to mischaracterize your argument to pick it apart. Your argument in favor of your preferred outcome (i.e. merge) so far has amounted to nothing more than "see my linked essay." In a Wikipedia discussion environment, in the absence of reasons based on Wikipedia policy or applicable guidelines, the burden is clearly on the mover of change (i.e. you) to justify the non-policy, non-guideline reasons for your preferred outcome. You have yet to advance a single reason why you oppose a common graphics scheme for college football players and other college sports, nor have you posited a single concrete benefit for our readers or the editors who use these templates on a regular basis. So far, the score is Andy 0, status quo 1. You can't win if your don't score. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I've invited all participants at the last TfD to this followup discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge as Dirtlawyer1 has argued on all points, more or less. Also, I'm not sure why we're discussing merging anything with Infobox NFL player while the deprecated Template:Infobox pro football player is still out there with nearly 500 latent transclusions. Cleaning up that obvious mess will help simplify and clarify other discussions such as this one. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A clear consensus, whatever it is, is the desired outcome. The last TfD was no consensus. Something like "clean up XYZ first", as you are suggesting, would be a clearer path than what we had.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Template:Infobox pro football player is marked "... deprecated. Please use Template:Infobox NFL player", it looks like a pure mechanical replacement of templates, which shouldn't have any merge issues. It's presumably independent of any discussion here, but perhaps your point is you'd rather not multitask.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My point was about prioritizing the low-hanging fruit and fixing the little problems so we can better focus on bigger issues. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose To me, we don't gain all that much by merging the templates. College players are not considered automatically notable, and of those that are notable I would say that most go on to a professional career at some time. For those that do go pro, the pro player template works best. For those that do not they either 1-achieved their notability as a college player and need the college box to highlight those achievements (such as Liz Heaston), 2-have gone on to become a coach where the coaches box is more useful (such as Tom Osborne), or 3-completed some other notable achievement where another box outside college football is more practical (such as Ronald Reagan). Further, I find that attempting to create "SuperTemplate" leads to more problems that it solves.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Paulmcdonald: When WP:CFB members started discussing revisions to Infobox college football in January, one of the new items I wanted to incorporate was a life-after-college-sports career parameter, so that CFB players who went on to a noteworthy non-sports professional career after college could have that noted in the infobox. Thanks to "embed" coding added by Frietjes, we now have the option of wrapping Infobox college football player with Infobox person on top, so that we can add several lifetime parameters if noteworthy. For the two existing examples of how the embed function might be used, see Mark Harmon and Kirk Herbstreit. At some point, we will need to discuss how to use this option judiciously. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nice!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oh that is good. Especially into the past when college suggested significantly more – or perhaps entirely different, education and the whole team was doctors and lawyers and such like. John Edgerton was first to come to mind to benefit from this. Cake (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, it's another option in our CFB tool kit. How we use it, and how often we use it, remains to be discussed after this "merge" discussion is over. That said, Edgerton does look like a pretty good candidate for it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Added it to some others which will hopefully help the discussion. I had forgotten Howdy Gray, who lacked an infobox since I was torn between person and CFB player. Cake (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose because I don't see a big issue with having different templates and after reading this discussion it seems clear that merging has quite a few potential issues. But I do think it is a good idea to make the parameter names consistent in both templates. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed merge. I'm a U. of Tennessee fan. I edit college basketball and UT Vols articles as well as other stuff I try to clean up when I see it. I don't often speak up in these discussions. I still consider myself somewhat of a newbie even though I've been around here for quite some time! But this one caught my attention because I was asked for my input in January, and I've followed the discussions since then. I'm completely on board with a unifying graphics and colors theme for college football players. From what I've seen of it so far, I endorse Dirt's plan for doing this, and I would really like to see what he proposes for that graphic design theme without the running interference from outside editors who only seem bent on derailing the effort with off-topic merge proposals, etc. Given that I favor a common graphics theme for all college sports, I oppose the proposed merge of the CFB and NFL player templates. "Golden age" CFB player articles have more in common with other college sports articles than they do with the modern NFL. Old-timers who played in the NFL should use the NFL player box; old-timers who only played college football rightfully should have an infobox that emphasizes college football and should be tied through colors and graphics to their respective universities and college sports generally. As a college sports fan and avid reader of college sports articles here, that just makes more sense. Regarding the new Template:Infobox college football player, I think the new version is a huge improvement over the old. I would like to see Dirt's proposal for an improved version of Template:Infobox NFL player. One other point: I am disappointed in the conduct of at least one sports editor who seems to have attempted to strip every college-specific data field and has opposed every effort to create visually distinctive graphics for Infobox college football player to further his own pro-merge agenda. As an alternative, Dirt sought out the input and opinions of his fellow college sports and NFL editors. I endorse his cooperative and democratic approach to this whole process.BillVol (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion, convenience break no. 1

• Comment. I appreciate Dirt's efforts in trying to create a visually appealing college football player infobox. That said, I do find the current array of infoboxes confusing. Ideally, there should be a single master infobox with flexible parameters that could be used for all (or nearly all) American and Canadian football players/coaches. I regularly work on football players from the 19th and 20th centuries, and when starting a new player article, it's not always clear whether I should be using:

(i) Template:Infobox college football player, which under current practice, as I understand it, is used if the subject gained his notoriety only from playing college football and without having coached a game, played a single professional game, or gone on to fame in another field,

(ii) Template:Infobox NFL player which, under current practice, is used even if the subject gained his principal fame from playing college football but went on to play even a single game for an NFL team (e.g., Tom Harmon, Lou Baldacci, Bob Timberlake),

(iii) Template:Infobox college coach which, under current practice, is used if the subject gained fame as a college football player but then went on to be a coach or assistant coach, even if only briefly (e.g., Germany Schulz),

(iv) Template:Infobox gridiron football person which, under current practice, is to be used if the subject played American college ball and then went on to play even a single game of Canadian football (e.g., Tom Pullen),

(v) Template:Infobox person which, under current practice, is to be used if the person played college football but then went on to greater fame in another field (e.g., Irving Kane Pond) or became an athletic director (e.g., Dave Brandon),

(vi) a hybrid embedded infobox which has recently been proposed for college football players who later became actors or something else (e.g., Mark Harmon), or

(vii) Template:Infobox athlete which, as I understand it, should be used if the person played college football but also excelled at track and field (e.g, Olympic medalists, Frederick Schule/John Garrels).

The current constellation of infoboxes makes it difficult, even for an experienced editor, to figure out which one to use. There really ought to be a way to come up with a single infobox with sufficiently flexible parameters that can be used for the vast majority of American and Canadian gridiron football players/coaches. It would certainly make life easier, and provide greater clarity, for content creators. Cbl62 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In case of Schule, my SOP would be convert the infobox there over to Infobox college coach, which I've done in many similar cases e.g. Archie Hahn. I understand your points about the confusion here, but if we unite all gridiron football people under one infobox then we have a new problem of disjointing college football coaches from other college sports coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You've forgotten {{Infobox NFL coach}}, whose merge with {{Infobox NFL player}} has been pending since November 2012. Alakzi (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, the Infobox NFL player/Infobox NFL coach merge is a tangent. Infobox NFL player already includes all of the necessary parameters for coaches, but the "merge" must be largely executed by hand edits because of incompatible formatting of data -- that often requires someone who actually knows the history of American pro football to get those edits right. We are also only talking about 332 total transclusions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it really need to be done by hand? I doubt that. The only reason I've been holding off doing the conversion is that I don't know which career format is preferable. Alakzi (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The formatting of coaching career information for Infobox NFL player needs to discussed and decided by the WP:NFL members. I had planned to have already put a set of options to WP:NFL for discussion and !voting, but other editors have had other plans since January. As you know, I am trying to turn my attention back to Infobox NFL player to address those concerns, too. I would like to present a coherent revamped Infobox NFL player to the WP:NFL members for discussion, rather than trying to have these discussions piecemeal. It would be nice to get it right the first time, rather than cutting and pasting and pretending that it's done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And then there also the deprecated Template:Infobox pro football player, which I mentioned above. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox pro football player was primarily used for AFL players who also played in the NFL. Because of the confusion between the AFL and NFL drafts, and other similar problems, care must be taken when converting these templates to Infobox NFL player. It also helps if you know some of the AFL/NFL history of the 1960s, so as not to confuse the datapoints. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Cbl62, I have spent a lot of time considering how to create a formula over the past five years that does justice to our great CFB players of the past, many of whom were student-athletes in the fullest sense of the term, with notable and/or noteworthy post-college careers outside sports. IMHO, there is no perfect "all-in-one" solution within a single template, and we should accept that. Infobox design is about making choices, i.e., choosing which parameters are included and which parameters are excluded. It's about emphasizing what is most important about the subject person. When we try to incorporate every datapoint about the subject in the infobox, we're no longer making choices about what is most important, we're simply duplicating the main body text of the article into bullet-point format. All-in-one "master" template solutions are a mess, with confusing multiple instruction sets, with too many optional parameter choices that do not apply to all uses, which inevitably leads to our novice editors invoking every available option, creating a fucking mess of an infobox that is too long, and cluttered with less-than-trivia datapoints. A simpler infobox is usually a better infbox. Again, good infobox design is about making choices. That said, choosing the right infobox is not nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Nor should it be. Most of those choices are pretty clear when we are talking about the CFB greats of the past. Given a little time, I will review the available options below --

(1) Infobox college football player is designed to be used for current college football players (usually 150 to 250 at any given time), but, more importantly, it is designed to be used for the 2,000+ historical college football players -- Heisman winners, All-Americans, CFHOF inductees and other players who are only/primarily notable as CFB players. It is designed to emphasize the college football careers of the great college football players of the past. I make no apologies for that, and I would think that would be among your principal concerns in this discussion.

(2) Infobox NFL player is properly designed to emphasize the pro career of current and former NFL players. It is a basic fact of life on Wikipedia that far more former CFB players are notable as a result of their pro careers than their CFB careers (roughly 3,000 purely CFB vs. 16,000 CFB/NFL). Per WP:NGRIDIRON, pro players basically get a notability "pass" as soon as they play in a single regular season game. As you and I have discussed many times in the past, it is not a rule I would have written, but that's the rule we inherited. On the other hand, CFB players -- other than major award winners -- effectively must satisfy the general notability guidelines, which is, ironically, a much tougher standard. Whether a single-game pro who was a truly notable CFB player -- say, a consensus All-American -- should use the CFB infobox or the NFL infobox is a matter for some thought. Personally, I believe squeezing a consensus All-American who had a brief one or two-game pro career into pro player box is a mistake. Even more so for NFL draftees/signees who never actually played in a regular season NFL game: these need to be reconverted to a CFB-based infobox which emphasizes their notable college career, not the trivia of a non-existent NFL career. And we already have the flexibility to make those choices.

(3) Infobox college coach is the uniform, standardized infobox template for all coaches, not just CFB coaches. I agree with that approach for two reasons: (a) Many, if not most, of our golden era CFB coaches were coaches for more than one college sport. In fact, before 1950, it was typical for the CFB coach to serve as college athletic director, and coach one or more other college sports. (b) I believe wholeheartedly in emphasizing the commonality of college sports. A great deal of effort has been expended to achieve the current level of uniformity in presentation and formatting of college coach information, effort I believe has been well spent. Infobox college coach is also designed to accommodate college athletic directors for the same reasons.

That said, your example of Germany Shulz is a good one regarding the making of choices. Schulz enjoyed a respectable 10-year career as a CFB assistant coach, and was briefly a head coach and an AD. Arguably, however, he is far, far more notable as a CFB player, including being inducted into the HOF as a player, and not as an assistant coach, coach or AD. Arguably, therefore, it would make more sense for Schulz's article to use Infobox college football player, and rely on the main body text to tell the story of his assistant coaching career, which is far less noteworthy than the CFB playing career for which he is primarily notable. If, however, you want to include both playing and assistant coaching careers in the infobox, then Infobox college coach remains the best choice -- and creating an all-in-one template is not going to solve any issues for Germany that aren't already solved by Infobox college coach.

(4) Infobox gridiron football person is the primary infobox template for CFL players, coaches and executives. Graphically, it is a primitive throwback whose design predates all other infobox templates under discussion here, and it has multiple inconsistent internal formatting issues. That said, the WP:CFL guys love it, are married to it, it incorporates many CFL-specific quirks, and it is not our place to tell the WP:CFL guys what to do with it. It works for them, and that's all I really need to know in order to leave it alone, as it is. If you want to engender permanent hostility between two or three WikiProjects that have long enjoyed cooperative relationships, then go ahead and try to force a merge of Infobox gridiron football person into an all-in-one "master" template, and learn to live with the seething anger of our Canadian friends. I, for one, believe in extending the same courtesy to their WikiProject's members as we would expect in return.

(5) Infobox person, Infobox officeholder, and numerous others . . . We must accept the fact that college football is not the be-all-end-all for many of our notable CFB players. Before the modern NFL era of the 1960s, many of our notable CFB players were just as likely to be notable for a non-sports career, and we have to recognize there is a hierarchy of importance in this world. Sure, Gerald Ford, Byron White, Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp were CFB players, but they were far more important to America as statesmen than as football players. Embedding CFB career history into their primary infobox -- Infobox officeholder -- would create another f---ing infobox mess. And adding a completely separate football player infobox is redundant and confusing to our readers, including duplicate birthdate, birthplace, etc. (see, e.g., Byron White and Jack Kemp). There are good ways to handle such situations, including relying primarily on main body text for their college careers and using a CFB stats table embedded in the CFB section of the text, as necessary.

Likewise, if a notable CFB player goes on to greater notoriety in the NFL (see, e.g., Emmitt Smith), the article infobox should properly emphasize their pro career, and we can address most of the subject's CFB career in the main body text and a CFB stats table embedded int the CFB section of the text. Trying to incorporate several dozen awards/highlights into the same infobox is folly, and a disservice to our readers. Again, good infobox design is about making choices, and emphasizing the most important elements of the subject life, not trying to list all of the elements of the subject's life.

(6) The "embed" option now available within Infobox college football player was not my idea or my handiwork. Frietjes insrted the coding in January 2015, and I believe that it has limited use for true "hybrids," to use your term. As I understand it, this is part of a larger effort to include "embed" coding for the benefit of Infobox person. I am skeptical of its widespread use, believing that it has the potential to exacerbate the problems of all-in-one infoboxes that incorporate far too many data points, and become far too long. How WP:CFB uses this "embed" option, or even if WP:CFB uses it all, is an open question that deserves to be discussed at length outside the present discussion. IMHO, it should never become the default setting in order to incorporate parameters such as family members, non-notable second careers, etc., that are tangential to the subject's primary notability as a CFB player. For someone like Mark Harmon or Kirk Herbstreit, it may have a valid use; on the other hand, for "hybrid" subjects like Harmon and Herbstriet, if a subject is more widely known for something other than CFB, then perhaps we should consider whether their CFB career is better handled with a combination of main body text and a CFB career stats table embedded within the CFB section of the main body text. Again, good infobox design is about making choices, not trying to cram everything into a single infobox.

(7) Infobox athlete is a "wrap" of Infobox sportsperson. Infobox sportsperson is a catch-all for many sports, and the infoboxes for biathletes, boxers (amateur), sailors, short track speed skaters, snowboarders, speed skaters, sport wrestlers, and swimmers utilize the template in the form of individualized "wraps." The template has multiple problems, and suffers from redundant parameters, unneeded and low-value options. For historic CFB players who are primarily notable for their CFB playing careers, there is no good reason to use it, including having played multiple college sports. The template is not designed to accommodate college team sports, and it lacks the necessary college-specific parameters to do so.

You mentioned the challenge of dealing with notable historic CFB players who were also Olympic medalists. For this, there is already a ready-made solution: Template:Medal, which is actually a family of related templates with which you may create a "medals table", without creating a full-blown infobox:

Olympic medal record
Men's track and field
Representing the United States
	1924 Paris	Discus throw

You may choose to place the medals table immediately under the articles infobox, or embed it in the related main body text. For Olympic sports, such as gymnastics, swimming, etc., those sport-specific templates have the ability to embed the medals table within the primary infobox. Because there is no international medals competition for American football, there is no reason to include the medals table embed function.

Bottom line: good infobox design is about making smart choices, i.e., which parameters to include and exclude in a given template, and then choosing the best template for a given subject. There are really only three choices for notable CFB players: Infobox college football player, Infobox college coach, and Infobox college NFL player. These three templates force editors to make those choices and to prioritize the most important information to be presented: CFB player, pro player or coach. In most instances, those choices are perfectly clear, and trying to cram every available datapoint into a single all-in-one infobox template leads to a messy, overly long infobox in practice, which does nothing particularly well. My guiding infobox design principle is that simpler is usually better, and tailor-made infobox templates are usually better than multi-use templates. I quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes (a.k.a. WP:IBX), which states:

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

That pretty much says it all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)