Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Dec2008

Should we have a standard on linking Specific (weekly) rankings?
Alright, as most of you know it has pretty much been a unwritten standard that you don't link a specific rank from one week (just talking about the number itself) to the main NCAA rankings article for that entire particular year. I have came across a non-registered user who is insisting that the numbers under rankings in info boxes and coaches career templates be linked, he is only doing it on Ole Miss related pages though (2008 Ole Miss Rebels football team and Houston Nutt) which leads me to believe he or she is just a fan of a particular team and doesn't really have an interest in what works for this project. He isn't linking the poll (coaches or AP) he is linking the actual numbers. (ex 20, 14 etc) This seems very silly to me and would create more confusion to a regular viewer than it would help them. It is like linking a specific game to a general season article. Just not very logical in my opinion. Just wanted to get some other opinions on this. Thanks. Rtr10 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, that falls into the same category as linking dates (as in January 10, 1955)and should be avoided. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Billma (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked under MOS and thought there was something in the Manual of Style on linking numbers (ie 22) but to my surprise, I didn't see a single thing on it. Rtr10 (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is really any problem with doing it, but since none of the other pages are doing it at this time, it should probably be avoided unless an agreement is made to do it on all pages. I do see that the Ole Miss page doesn't have the usual "See Also" section with the rankings page listed like most of the other pages have. Maybe adding that would resolve the issue for now. I can definitely understand the other editor wanting to add it though, as it does kind of make it easier to find that seasons rankings, especially on a coaches page like Houston Nutt, where no other links to the rankings for a particular season exist. Ryan2845 (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That anonymous editor was a problem for me last week on the Egg Bowl article. My personal belief is that the individual is Allstarecho editing as an anon.  I agree with Ryan2845 above in that the rankings that he has linked right now should be added under a "see also" page, and that making rankings a wikilink is a bit too much.  Many articles already have too many wikilinks in them as it is. CH52584 (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The AP number (22) and the Coaches' Poll number (25) are wikilinked to 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings and 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings respectively. Those pages show THE ranking for each week so there's nothing wrong whatsoever with linking them. Otherwise I'll just end up linking them via a ref tag to an outside source. They need to be sourced, whether it's via an internal page or external page. Quite frankly I don't care which one but something needs to be in place to source/reference/prove the rankings. 75.64.248.238 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You totally ignored my suggest of adding a rankings chart to the season article, which would reference the entire season and THAT would be acceptable to wikilink via a "see also" to the 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings article, which shows the ENTIRE season. Not just one particular ranking which is what you are currently linking incorrectly. Rtr10 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Incorrectly" to whom? You? You can't call something "incorrectly" when there is no guideline/MOS covering the damn thing. Stop being a jerk and open your mind a little and realize that rankings should be linked/sourced somewhere, whether internal via a wikilink or external via a ref tag.. and until someone comes up with something better, I used the only internal option available. Asshole. 75.64.248.238 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No need for name calling here buddy. This is a community of editors, not a dictatorship. You have had a tone ever since I've encountered you as "it's either going to be my way or else" and that does nothing in helping. The only thing myself and others are trying to do is to make sure we find the best way to do this and then set a standard and make all college football pages great. No need to get hostile with someone who is only trying to help. That is one of the best parts of this project is that we work together to make all pages better, not just one good article for our own team(s). The reason we have never wikilinked a specific rank, from a specific week to the NCAA rankings page you have been linking these to, is because you are linking one specific link to a page with nearly 2,000 different rankings. I don't think it is that hard to see why that would be confusing to someone reading this page who doesn't know what they are reading when they click that link. I have suggested multiple times, only for you to ignore each time, a rankings chart that are found on most college football team season pages as I have tried to show you, would be a quality addition to the 2008 Ole Miss Rebels football team article and would settle your concern of showing people how Ole Miss moved through the rankings. It would actually do an even better job because you are showing readers specificly how Ole Miss has done in the ranking rather than sending them to a page with 10 different charts with thousands of different rankings and a lot of different teams. If you want to source a ranking then provide a reference. I have no problem with it, even though I think a very large majority of the editors in this project will tell you it really isn't necessary, but I wouldn't object to that if you think something is incorrect. I will put together a rankings chart in case you don't know how to do that. Hopefully that will satisfy your want for readers to see the progression of Ole Miss through the entire season in the rankings. Rtr10 (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy for Which Rankings to Use
Does a policy currently exist for which rankings to use when citing what a team was ranked at a given point in the season? If not, I believe one should be created so it is documented and standardized across the board for all football articles. I propose that for weeks where the BCS rankings are available that the BCS rankings be used and that when these are not available that the AP poll be used, followed by the Coaches poll. Comments? Rodzilla (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have always used the Coaches poll for the whole season. The reason was because the BCS poll is only out for half the season and it was preferred to use a poll that existed from the beginning until the end. The Coaches was decided over the AP since the Coaches is used in the BCS formula and has at least some effect in the CFB world. Although, this policy was decided when the project was first created. Don't know if it is still uniformly followed. Unfortunately, with the AP dropping itself from the BCS formula, I don't see a reason to use it.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with not using the BCS rankings, as they are only out for half the season. I could go either way on the Coaches/AP, just as long as one is used for the standard.   Ndenison  talk  03:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with using coaches based on the dropping of the AP from the BCS formula Ryan2845 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be better to use a poll rather than changing back and forth through out a season. The BCS doesn't come out until after the half way point of the season and doesn't publish rankings after the Bowl games, so then they would have to be switched back to a poll after the season. So I would definitely suggest using one of the two major polls. As for which one, I would have to throw my support behind the AP Poll. It has been the poll of record in College Football since the mid 1930's and when we are talking about using this information for a historical use, I believe it would be better to use what we have been using for over 70 years. I don't really see the poll not currently being included in the BCS as a reason to not use it. The AP still awards their own National Championship as they have for more than 70 years. It is still also used by the large majority of the media. I just think the AP is better for our purposes, but of course that is just my opinion. Rtr10 (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I put the AP poll ahead of the coaches poll for the reason that it draws from a larger body of people and the poll ballots are publicly released throughout the season (transparency). It may not be used in the BCS anymore but it is historically reputable and significant.  The coaches poll is a smaller sample size (arguably more open to error) and only releases the final ballots of the season (lack of transparency).  While I do think it makes sense to stick with one source for the entire season, I think it could be a bit confusing if we're not using the BCS rankings when the BCS rankings are the ones used for determining the two teams who play for a national title and for determining tie-breakers in some situations (e.g. the current OU/Texas debate).  I think if we document it in an actual policy page and note it where appropriate that it would make a lot of sense. Rodzilla (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should still use the Coaches Poll for all rankings. One, it still matters, since it's part of the BCS formula. I would vote against using the BCS formula standings for anything, since the BCS's sole purpose is to place teams in the BCS bowls, and shouldn't be used as a ranking on any of the wikiproject's pages like the Coaches or AP polls. I've already noticed that some overzealous editors have tried to convert all of the templates to use the BCS standings instead of the Coaches Poll rankings, which makes zero sense to me for the reasons that Nmajdan has already stated above. I think the original decision to use the Coaches Poll is still a sound one. - Billma (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument really contradicts itself. The AP is irrelevant because it isn't used in the BCS, but the BCS should be used because it is only relevant to bowl selection? That makes no sense at all. If we are going to make the argument the BCS shouldn't be used because it is only relevant to bowl selection, I'd say the AP would be the better choice because it is the more recognized poll across the country by both media, schools and fans and it has been THE poll of record for over 70 years. Rtr10 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have been tired when I wrote that. I wasn't arguing that the BCS should be used as a ranking, I was actually trying to argue the opposite. I was just pointing out that there are already editors out there trying to replace Coaches rankings in the various CFB templates with the BCS rankings, which makes zero sense to me. I got tired of trying to revert them all. In fact, I totally agree with what Nmajdan says in the next post. - Billma (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the BCS should not be used because it isn't released until mid-October and then only runs through the conference championships. There is no BCS poll for the first 6 or so weeks of the season and no final BCS poll after the bowl games are complete. It is too confusing to have to point out that for the first 6 weeks, we are using one poll, then for the next 8 weeks we are using a different poll, and then for the final results, we are using the first poll again. Again, I put more weight in the Coaches Poll since it is used in the formula for the BCS and the Coaches does have just as much of a reputation as the AP. Yes, the AP has been out longer (about 15 years), but its not as if the Coaches Poll was created in the last decade. In fact, it has been around for nearly six decades.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While the Coaches Poll has been around since the 1950's it is laughable to say it has carried the same weight as the AP. The AP is the poll of record in College Football. If you believe otherwise try to look up old Coaches Poll rankings. You can't find them. You can easily find a ranking from the AP poll from any year and any week in that year. While they are on a comparable level today, the AP poll has really been THE poll for a long, long time. I agree that we should use the same poll and stated that in my first post on this topic, however I believe the AP poll being the poll that has always been used in a historical reference for College Football should be what we continue to use. I don't see the Coaches Poll being used in the BCS as that big of a factor trumping it over the AP. The AP is still the predominantly used poll among media and SID's. I don't see us listing the Harris Poll more because they are included in the BCS. That argument just doesn't make that much sense to me. If the BCS is THAT important, then why not use the BCS when available. If it isn't that important lets not use it as the ultimate factor in why the Coaches Poll should be used instead of the AP. Rtr10 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - The AP poll is far more significant, partly due to the reasons I've already listed above. If we're not going to use the BCS, then we should ignore it for this discussion.  I think we all agree to one extent or another that it's a consensus to stick with a single source throughout the season, so the BCS is out.  We're down to Coaches, Harris, and AP, and also the computer rankings.  I think we should stick with a reputable poll instead of the computer rankings.  In my opinion the AP poll is the best of the three polls from a standpoint of reputation, historical usage, transparency/accountability, etc.  The only strike against it that I'm hearing is it isn't used in the BCS, and that's because they told the BCS they weren't allowed to use it.  I think we should go with the AP. Rodzilla (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support using the Coaches' Poll -- it's as good as any of the rest -- but what if we're talking about a team/season/event that happened before 1950? JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with using the AP Poll prior to the 2005 season, when the AP Poll withdrew from the BCS formula. It's hard enough as it is to find historical Coaches Poll data, but the AP Poll data is readily available. - Billma (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe we should definitely not use the BCS, because it is only out for part of the year.
 * Between the AP and Coaches, I prefer the AP poll. Reasons;
 * Most media refer to the AP poll, so our rankings would have the benefit of agreeing with most references we are citing.
 * The coaches poll is part of the BCS, but it is only part of the BCS. Just because a team is ranked x in the coaches poll does not mean they will be ranked x in the BCS.
 * The coaches poll has no transparency during the regular season. Coaches do not reveal how they voted their ballots, and many of them have vested interests in the outcomes of the rankings (bonuses, choice of opponents they will face, perceived strength of team and conference...) It has been widely publicized that some coaches are not even casting all their ballots, but are delegating them to graduate assistants or sports information directors.
 * The coaches poll has sold out to the BCS to the extent that they have set a rule that says the coaches *must* vote the winner of the BCS National Championship Game as #1 in the final poll.
 * The AP poll is the longest running extant poll, so we would be most consistent throughout the history of the sport.
 * The AP poll is still relevant even after withdrawing from the BCS. In fact, they are free to select their own champion.  The NCAA does not proscribe that schools must count only BCS titles.  AP titles may still very much be claimed by the schools.  It is only a matter of time before the AP and BCS selections for #1 differ.
 * Johntex\talk 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alabama's 12 national titles
"Im An Asian" made an edit on the Alabama Crimson Tide football page to the number of national titles, changing the number from 12 (the number the school recognizes, as well as most media outlets), to 7 (the number of "wire" titles...AP + UPI titles), and threatens anybody who changes it back with a vandalism warning.

It seems to me that there is nothing that dictates the source of the number of national titles, simply that it be the number that is "generally accepted," not from a specific organization, and it seems to be beyond the scope of this project to dictate which number should be used.

And, I might add that the BCS champion is only guaranteed the USA Today/Coaches national title, not the AP title (see LSU in 2003, who won the Coaches/USA Today Poll, but USC won the AP), so, in that case, LSU did not win what "Im An Asian" would consider a wire title.

So, that being as it is, I am going to change it back, and I would appreciate others opinion on this. CH52584 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He did the same thing to the Minnesota article, changing 6 to 4 and making the same vandalism threat. Is this a case of a unilateral policy change, or is there some kind of consensus for making these changes? MarcusMaximus (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He's done the same on the Notre Dame and Ohio State pages as well. He's been identified as a vandal by several other editors, so I think the best course of action is to alert an admin and make sure he doesn't vandalize/threaten any other editors.CH52584 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I put a reference for the Minnesota national championships. I'm fairly certain most of these football pages state national championships claimed by the respective universities. On a side note, I checked Rivals.com ... he's doesn't seem to be listed as a recruit. :P Latics (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we've been going off of wire titles for a long time now. THere have been discussions on changing back to non-wire, or rather "claimed titles" (especially since the wires only started naming champions in the 1930s) but no consensus was ever reached. Alabama is notorious for its 12 claim. --Bobak (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

National titles, again(infobox)
Okay, as we can see from the above conversation, we're getting people who want the school's claimed national titles versus the wire national titles --this time with citations. We really need to figure out a uniform position because some articles are following the CFB policy of using wire and others are not --this is problematic because people are, in good faith, giving and receiving vandalism warnings to people who may not know of one policy or the other. How should we move forward? I have not been happy with the current policy, but regardless we need to have consensus and uniform implementation (and, if necessary, enforcement). --Bobak (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why can't we give both? "Wire Titles = 12, School claims 123"? As long as it's referenced, who cares? This satisfies both camps. MECU ≈ talk 02:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain, but it seems the number of people who supported the "wire only" NC line haven't chimed in here for quite some time. I'm for "claimed", but it would be nice to get at least a few more regular contributors --Bobak (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that the number of national titles should not be decreased as long as the number is properly cited. Wikipedia has the responsibility to present information as it would commonly be discussed.  For example, ESPN et al are more likely to discuss Bama's 12 titles, not their 7 wire titles.  I think wikipedia should state the number as what is most commonly accepted.CH52584 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I forgot to mention that this is centered on the infobox. That's where previous issues arose, not in the article text as the differences could be better described and cited.  As such: I do not disagree with the above, however the previous concern was is there a common, uniform source that everyone can agree to for "total titles" in the infobox?  An ESPN/SI/etc writer may not be as reliable because they sometimes can disagree (and the editor might miss the discrepancy).  Is there a page we can hook all of these title counts to?  Once we have that nailed down, then we can go with "commonly held" on all the infoboxes.  It's actually a bit comical, since the people who get into edit wars over the infoboxes apparently never read the actual articles (at least from their edit summary comments), take that as you may... --Bobak (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still for claimed national championships. ESPN generally says Alabama has 11, Alabama claims 12, but the NCAA record book has 17... 12 is generally most accepted, even as much as some might not like it. :P Anyway, I think it'd be a safe bet to just go by claimed. But then, the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article is ... I don't know. That's where it would seem to get messy. – LATICS   talk  00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have always been and always will be with a claimed guy. There is simply no debating how many titles a school claims. It is in just about every case, very easy to reference and like I said, there is no debating to it. As long as there is a "wire" or "unbeaten UPI" or what ever else someone can think of you will hear an endless argument from two different sides in a lot of different cases. Every school has a number of set national titles and I think we should just stick with that. Rtr10 (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Use AP Poll Across The Board
I propose the use of the AP poll across the board for all locations throughout wikipedia where football team rankings are listed. This proposal stems from the discussion above and I believe that Johntex did an excellent job of summarizing the pros of the AP poll (the very last post above). Please post agree, disagree, or comment (neutral). Rodzilla (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree per reasons posted by Johntex.  Ndenison  talk  02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree per reasons listed in the discussion above by myself, Rodzilla and Johntex. Rtr10 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   20:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I honestly couldn't care less. I have little desire to go back through all the articles I've worked on to change them all so I'll leave that to others. Make sure the templates are capable of indicating whether a poll is Coaches or AP (I believe they can do this already, but double check).↔NMajdan &bull;talk 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair to say consensus has been reached? (At least between those who care)  Ndenison  talk  00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for more people to respond, but it looks like consensus alright. We need some way to make sure that we know which pages are using the AP poll and which are using other polls, however.  We should probably draft the fact that we're using the AP poll and why in an official Wikipedia policy at some point as well. Rodzilla (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons category mess
There's a problem developing in the Category:College football seasons area. User Maple Leaf is creating new FBS categories for seasons already covered by I-A. I've noticed that Ohio State season articles are being put into these new categories. A few days ago I nominated two of the categories for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 10. Can someone help out here and leave the guy a note and get the incorrect categories deleted? --Geologik (talk)
 * Update: I got in touch with MapleLeaf and let him know the situation. I've moved the season articles back into their respective categories. If an admin or someone with deletion power happens to drop by or someone wants to nominate these, the incorrect categories are: Category:1967 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1968 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1969 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1970 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1975 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1978 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1979 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1994 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Category:1995 NCAA Division I FBS football season, and Category:1997 NCAA Division I FBS football season. --Geologik (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Pages deleted, CfD's closed. Oren0 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New FAC
Hey all. There's a new college football featured article candidate up for review right now. I posted 2006 Gator Bowl for comments, criticism, and support, and anything you'd care to add would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

NCAATeamFootballSeason infobox being changed for logo "overuse"
Without any warning, a handful of editors had a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content today and decided for everyone in the Project that there is a so-called "severe overuse problem" with college football logos. This is hardly the first time its come up, and its been heavily discussed and we've come to the current system with one logo per season page. While they're acting in good faith, they've gone and made changes across the CFB spectrum, even changing the Template:NCAATeamFootballSeason. I'm trying to keep the sudden changes to a minimum and encouraging them to come discuss the matter here. --Bobak (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I was wondering what the hell was happening to the logos when I was looking at season pages earlier. Why does it always seem that the people who appear to be least knowledgable on college football/athlete matters, always cause the most trouble. --Geologik (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing. Seems like they might be a little less anal about this stuff if they just set back, drank a cold one and enjoyed a nice college football game. ;-) I totally understand non-free and fair use content (as I believe most the editors in this project do). This particular Hammersoft editor has taken one unique case of a Ohio State logo being overused and tried to use it to get every single team logo thrown off just about every single page. When the logos were placed there legitimately under fair use. I'm sure the person was doing it with good intentions, but it really messes up the hard work of a lot of editors and is simply a pain in the you know what. What irritated me the most, was he cited in his edit summary '"Use not permitted. See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content" as if there was a consensus, standard or policy made there. When I read the discussion it was quite an argument and in no way a consensus on anything, in fact it stated in the discussion that policy sided against him. Just blew me away. This particular user does not contribute any actual information to Wikipedia. Just does little nagging crap like this. It is totally ridiculous. Rtr10 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye-out, guys. These types of editors can definitely be irritating to deal with. You would think they would have, you know, a vote or a comprehensive conversation that resulted in a clear-cut consensus or something on the matter before taking it upon themselves to mass remove content. If I happen to see any instances of it, I will definitely revert it. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When all else fails, revert war? Is that the best way forward? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no revert war. You prematurely took out images acting as if a consensus, standard or policy had been set in the discussion you were linking in the edit summaries which definitely was not the case. Rtr10 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As Rtr10 states, certainly not a "revert war", just a reversion of anyone taking matters into their own hand to mass remove something before it has been decided to change policy. (a reversion to keep to current policy, if you will) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that Rtr10 seems to acknowledge that the Ohio State logo was overused (it was used in over 100 articles), mainly due to its inclusion in season pages...but then seems to think the overuse of other logos on season articles isn't a problem. As I noted at the centralized discussion, whether there's one use or a thousand uses, the problem is the same. It's not the number, its the type of use. Ohio State just happened to be one that had a lot of such uses. There's no reason many other college teams can't have the same amount of overuse (assuming we allowed it). The point is how something is used, not how much. Anyway, if you feel like contributing to the centralized discussion, feel free.
 * You know good and well they are not the same case. You think they are being overused, but there is rationale provided for every single use in these cases and they do fall under fair use. Rtr10 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? It's a fair use image. Of course it falls under fair use. Plus, just because it has a rationale doesn't make it acceptable. That only passes #10c of WP:NFCC. There's lots more hurdles to be passed.


 * As to the desire that people should contact your project first before messing with these articles, please understand that WP:OWN is policy. This project is not the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable in articles this project has an interest in. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to present yourself in good faith, which you have not at all, you should have at the least come here and notify the actual contributors of this project that you have a problem with our way of doing things. You simple took a very hostile approach to all of us and blind sided the entire project as you can see above. That was simply unacceptable. Whether you were doing it in good faith or not. Rtr10 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at the centralized discussion, you're best off assuming bad faith when you read what I have to say. Once you're done doing that, and are willing to comment on what I say rather than me, perhaps you'll feel better about everything. With that out of the way...
 * As I noted, the projects are not the final arbiters of what is and is not acceptable. I have zero...zero...intention of informing projects about any ongoing discussion I am involved in that affects articles they are interested in. If you wish to call that hostile and unacceptable behavior, so be it. I'm not interested in appeasing projects. I am interested in upholding policy and guidelines, and projects don't have any more say in that than anyone else. The very notion that projects must be informed goes against WP:OWN and I find it dramatically offensive to the average editor who doesn't happen to be a member of your project but must get your approval to even comment about articles you're interested in. If this is the approach this project seeks to take, it's time for an MfD on the project as you are in clear violation of WP:OWN and that is blatantly unacceptable. Cheers, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to be the most ignorant and disrespectful editor I have ever come across on wikipedia. This project is not possessive over anything and is in no way in violation of WP:OWN policy. This project however is full of users who actually contribute content to Wikipedia. I skimmed over your Contribution history and didn't see a single case in which you were actually contributing useful content to Wikipedia. Just little piss ant stuff like what you are trying to do here. This totally goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, which I am pretty sure you already know. I'd also like to refer you to Assume good faith which includes many staples of editing on wikipedia. "	Civility, Maturity, Responsibility ... When disagreement occurs, explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus." You totally ignored editors of these articles and members of this project by failing to bring your reason to remove images to either the talk pages of each article or this project. This is why you were met by staunch opposition. It is very hard to believe with your behavior that you are doing things in good faith. Your edits from my view are more harmful and troublesome, than they are good. Just something you should think about in the future. Rtr10 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rtr10, allow me to be more clear. I read your above post only so far as "You have to be the most ignorant and disrespectful editor I have ever come across on wikipedia" I don't need to read anymore. Several times now you have taken it upon yourself to directly insult me. With this latest post, you've gone completely overboard. You are in blatant violation of WP:NPA. If you can't post without insulting someone, then don't post at all. Further insults by you WILL be reported. I'm not going to put up with your attitude forever. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should learn the definition of insult. I said you were disrespectful. That was not an insult it was meant to tell you, you should reevaluate the way you treat other editors and your behavior in editing yourself. If threatening me makes you feel nice and powerful go right ahead. You insulted myself and every other editor in this project by saying we are all breaking Wikipedia policy when we clearly are not. If you want to continue to be a dick to myself and other editors who actually contribute real content to wikipedia, go right ahead, but you are not going to get me to concede to you by trying to scare me. Simply isn't going to work. Nice try though. I will continue to contribute real content to wikipedia and continue to follow wikipedia policy, standards and guidlines while editing in the real spirit of wikipedia. Working with a community of editors to produce the best free encyclopedia on the world wide web. Thanks for stopping by a project that contributes to wikipedia. Feel free to come back anytime if you want to start contributing actual content to wikipedia. We would love to welcome you in to our community of contributing editors! Rtr10 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling someone the "most ignorant" editor on Wikipedia can hardly be construed as anything other than an insult. If you wish to follow Wikipedia policy as you suggest you want to do, then I strongly encourage you to read and abide by No personal attacks. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * HAhahahahaahahahah! Ok, so the pro-inclusionists are "normal" people. Thanks for the insult! I'm abnormal now, and obsessed with free content. Actually, I'll take that as a compliment, since this is A FREE CONTENT ENCYCLOPEDIA it is hardly surprising that there would be people here who are (gosh gee willikers) interested in free content. I mean, the horror! Someone on a free content project interested in free content??? Say it ain't so!!!! We can't let those abnormal pervy types in here! BAN! I SAY! BAN THE FREE CONTENT LOVERS NOW! by Hammersoft

What a fackin' toolbag. I hope he's not older than 16. Jesus Christ. How do you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when all you've done is express your views in a condescending and immature manner? How about working to improve pages instead of crusading against the use of logos? *facepalm here* --Geologik (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just going to throw it out there... Remember to be civil and keep a cool head when arguments get heated. Reading some of the comments ... it appears to be getting borderline. – LATICS   talk  23:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No kidding. Chill out, folks. Spend the time you'd take ranting on developing an article, instead. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at The Game (Harvard-Yale)? I added logos like every other rivalry mentioned in that article, added good fair use rationales, and Hammersoft came by and deleted it, claiming that there was "no consensus" for adding logos. I understand she is trying to change the consensus, that is her right, but to say that there is no consensus for that type of edit belies her whole argument against the existing consensus. Can someone here take a look at her recent edits?-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From the discussion you've been involved in, it's blatantly apparent that there is no consensus. You claim there's no consensus to remove them from articles. If that is the case, then the same can be said for articles where they do not exist at this time. Since the article has existed for quite some time with a free license image that conveys significant information, I fail to see there is an adequate rationale to supplant the existing free license content with fair use content. If you think there is a reason, please feel free to bring it up at WT:NFC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, how can you say you're not trying to change consensus? It's in the freaking infobox for NCAA seasons, for crying out loud.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Couple to keep an eye on that have been changed recently, just fyi for everyone: Big Game (football), Carolina-Duke rivalry, and of course the already mentioned The Game (Harvard-Yale). Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE
This project would probably be interested in the debate on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people), concerning the wording of WP:ATHLETE. You may also be interested in the debate on Articles for deletion/Devon Kennard, an AfD seeking to delete numerous articles on college football players. - auburn pilot's   sock  08:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on logo usage on this page
There is a discussion occurring about whether certain college-football related pages should include a logo. You are invited to participate in the discussion if you wish. permalink to discussion as of this point in time. Johntex\talk 20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Hammersoft and friends have now moved into a RFC with the intention of doing away with the ability of this project to use athletic logos on individual season pages. The discussion can be found here.
 * Ugh. One of the reasons I'm not nearly as active on WP as I used to be. This place is a bureaucratic mess. There really needs to be a more concrete stance on NFCs from the Board.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it either. I'm at a loss everytime I see a group of people arguing a point that actually detracts from Wikipedia. Could you imagine if these folks actually put their efforts into creating articles? Wikipedia would be the better for it. --Geologik (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid the bureaucracy and simply focus on what interests me. Still, every now and again you find yourself in these messes --that's where the ability of people in these WikiProjects to work together is beneficial.  Once things like this are over, I go back to improving and creating articles.  If you can look at it that way, its a good collaboration where we can all look out for one another.  Whatever you do, try not to feel like Al Pacino in Godfather III: "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!" :-)  I think this specific WikiProject has done a good job of working together, and there are some strong contributors here.  Don't let some people who are a bit too in love with bureaucracy-over-contribution pull you down ;-) They usually leave out of frustration when they realize all of their work is unimportant (versus articles that the public actually read).  --Bobak (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Non I-A programs
Any thought to articles on non Division I-A programs? The Ivy League, to take the most prominent example, has a long and storied football history, and currently there aren't even specific articles for Ivy League school athletic programs as a whole, much less football teams individually. Compare coverage of I-AA football with, for instance, single A minor league baseball or lower ranks of the English football system (e.g. Conference National teams), and it seems like these programs get very short shrift. Princeton played in the first game of American football ever played, and has a program going back 140 years, but all we have about it is a single paragraph. The same is more or less true for all the other Ivies' football teams. And beyond the Ivies, I-AA teams regularly provide players to the NFL, are occasionally televised, and draw thousands of fans - oughtn't coverage be better? john k (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You ought to have no problem starting an article on any major college program, even those in FCS (former D-IAA) or even lower, so long as you can write a solid article with good sources. Needless to say, the Ivy League would be easy to do --I mean, Princeton helped start the darned thing.  I would also toss out major D-IAA programs such as Appalachian State (which already has one) or even the notable teams of D-III Mount Union --frankly, it surprises me no one has made an article for them. --Bobak (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurrahhh More help! For smaller schools like NAIA and Div III, Div II we've started making "athletics" page to go with the school page and linking to the football section.  But I think ultimately that every Ivy league team needs a football team page, especially those like Princeton, Yale, and Harvard that were not only powerhouses of success but also key in the development of college football especially in the early years!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see more people get involved with creating and editing articles for teams below I-A. I know Paul has done a lot of the Division II, III and NAIA page creations. I mostly spend my time on Division I-AA, especially the Appalachian State Mountaineers football and Southern Conference related articles. I updated the infoboxes for all the I-AA conferences awhile back but the pages themselves could use some work. Take a look at the WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable as it'll give a good idea on what's been created and what hasn't. I've spent a lot of time organizing it and trying to find as many team and season articles to link as I could. I keep tabs on and organize List of NCAA Division I FCS football programs and over the last few days I've been working a bunch on List of NCAA Division I FCS football stadiums. I also started List of NCAA Division I-AA football seasons. We've got articles for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 seasons so far. I also created the I-AA playoff templates found here: Category:NCAA Division I FCS playoffs navbox templates and the Division I FCS National Champions template. More help is always appreciated. --Geologik (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem of Steve Gatena
We've got an interesting situation: there's an article about a USC reserve of absolutely no notability, Steve Gatena, but somehow it got by an AfD without consensus (3-3, with one of the keeps being a new account and the other its PR-titled creator; the WP:CFB voters were 2 for delete and 1 for no opinion). Let me be clear, I am a firm supported of notable college athletes being worthy of inclusion --but if this precedent holds, any player on any D-IA team will be fair game for an article. I don't think the greater Wikipedia community at-large is going to go for this, I'm trying to prevent things from getting out of control. The article is a puff-piece and the photos are call CP-violations desperately trying to show some notability when, as someone who has a huge knowledge of USC football (just see the FA I made of the 2007 season), this is not a notable person. If this had slipped by with another team, I may not have caught it, but this is an article of nothing. Am I being out of line here? This ended up slipping through because of lack of attention --Would the fellows of WP:CFB be willing to chime in if this gets renominated? --Bobak (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I am a fairly regular CFB contributor and I !voted keep. Second, one of the deletes was by someone who has !voted "Delete per nom" on every one of Balloonman's very questionable AfDs (I believe that editor is the only delete !vote on every single one of them) including Jimmy Clausen.  That AfD is a bigger test of whether we believe that FBS college football players inherently pass WP:ATHLETE, which I believe they do as that policy is currently written. Oren0 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe your interpretation is too generous and will ultimately allow for [120 (teams) x 85 (scholarship players)] 10,200 new articles (at least). While I disagree on that, here's the best part: Gatena is a walk-on (proof).  If you include walk-ons, that 10,200 number increases with very little room for any opinion on notability.  A line must be drawn.  --Bobak (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ATHLETE states that notability is achieved when someone has "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." This guy is a third string left tackle .  I wouldn't consider this to be competing at the highest level.  If the AFD is reopened, I would vote to Delete.  I already tagged on of his images for Deletion.     Ndenison  talk  04:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm certainly not saying Gatena will never be notable, but he would need to achieve something like teammate Clay Matthews, who rose from a walk-on to being a scholarship starting LB/DE this season and a solid NFL Draft prospect. --Bobak (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize people are a bit distracted by the Non-free content discussion, but I have gone ahead and re-nominated the Steve Gatena article for AfD. Please participate (one way or the other), the last AfD had a total of 6 votes which --given the significance of this notability decision for a walk-on-- is far too low. --Bobak (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

infobox help
Can someone please help me with the 1998 Big 12 Championship Game page? The game went into double OT, and I can't get the infobox to show the two overtime periods. K-State scored 3 points in each period, and A&M scored 3 in the first, and 6 in the second period. Thanks in advanceTopgun530 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Help again! This time it is the 1998 Alamo Bowl.  What's missing and messing up the infobox?Topgun530 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been fixed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on College Football logos
Users opposing the use of College Football team logos being used in articles through out the College Football project have filed a Request for Comment trying to ban use of team logos. As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy. It would be appreciated if you could take a moment and voice you opinion on the subject here: RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. Thank you in advance and thank you for your contributions to the College Football Project. Rtr10 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that Seraphimblade has gone on a deletion spree before the issue has been decided. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His edit summaries appear threatening as well. Has he become the sole representative of Wikipedia law? --Geologik (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I told him he was a vandal. Lets see how he takes it.  I don't consider Rtr10's posts to be in violation of WP:CANVASS.  He's informing member of this project about something that will directly effect a lot of articles they work on.    Ndenison  talk  19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone remember to keep a cool head. Given how adamant both sides are, this could end up moving up in the dispute resolution process. Acting badly isn't going to help us, and will harm individuals (and arguable the whole). In the meantime, if you want to get more attention on this important discussion, you can place a notice, similar to the one JohnTex used above, on the discussion pages of affected articles, to let people know there is a conversation going on that will influence those articles. Remember, as per WP:CANVASS, you have to keep it neutral. This is a variant of how JohnTex did it that you can use: "There is a Request for Comment occurring about whether certain college-football related pages should include a logo. This is an article that would be affected by the decision.  You are invited to participate in the discussion if you wish.  permalink to discussion as of this point in time." (feel free to use it) I recommend avoiding individual user talk pages and reviewing the WP:CANVASS guideline before going forward. I think we will prevail on the merits of our arguments, we just need people involved in areas such as college football and college basketball to know what's going on. Let's just keep it cool, and to it the right way. --Bobak (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC on College Football logos
As the NFCC talk page was becoming difficult to navigate (it was 400K), I have moved the RFC to a subpage at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. If you had the talkpage watchlisted, you may wish to add the subpage also. Best, Black Kite 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

USC national titles
I have counted 11 national titles, but the person who is controlling the USC Trojans football page counts 7. What gives?
 * I believe the University of Southern California only claims seven national championships, which is the number recognized by most. Several teams (Alabama, Notre Dame and Michigan just to name a few) have been awarded more national championships than they actually claim. Since the NCAA does not officially name the National Champion there is no exact way to say "this team has this many" so generally you go by what that school claims. Rtr10 (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have heard the USC Trojans football dept claims 11 national titles. (1928, 1931, 1932, 1939, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978, 2003, 2004)

For the 1939 team:

"The 1939 Trojans were presented with the Knute Rockne Intercollegiate Memorial Trophy, at the time emblematic of the nation's No. 1 team. The trophy (originally called the Rissman National Trophy) was given to the team that finished atop the Dickinson System, a mathematical point formula devised by Illinois economics professor and nationally-respected football analyst Frank G. Dickinson. His system crowned a national champion from 1926 to 1940 (with predated rankings in 1924 and 1925). It was the first to gain widespread national public and media acceptance as a "major selector," according to the NCAA Football Records Book."

http://usctrojans.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072604aaa.html [/quote]

Teams such as Michigan, Stanford and SMU have claims championships solely using the Dickinson System as well, and they are not disputed. USC should have the same right. (Phenix621 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC))


 * The USC page wasn't just about the Dickinson System, rather non-wire titles. Since that page keeps getting hammered by new users who haven't read about collaboration instead of unilateral action, we keep running into this. --Bobak (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * USC claims 11 titles. But, as seen here, they have 7 wire titles. The question of which number to include in the Template:NCAAFootballSchool infobox is contentious, and I think may deserve further discussion...
 * On February 29, 2008, removed the "wire" from "Wire national titles", which had been added back on December 30, 2006, by (no doubt following this discussion). The topic was broached once on Template talk:NCAAFootballSchool, referring to this Dec 2006-Jan 2007 thread, which seems to be the largest centralized discussion on the issue. This is a case where form and practice aren't quite matching up and we could use clarity on the situation. (My personal preference: link to NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship in the category "Claimed national titles" and just use the numbers that the schools choose to promote.)
 * So...I think opening up a new thread to generate discussion on the issue would be worthwhile. Perhaps an RfC would be useful? &mdash; Scientizzle 00:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just personal opinion, but I have always found the whole "non-wire National Championship" argument to be kind of week. If a team has a valid claim to a National Championship and that is a championship recognized by the NCAA and the school claims that National Championship, there is really not much to debate, since there was never a clear way to name a National Champion. Rtr10 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Div-1A football is the only college sport in which the NCAA doesn't run a championship, and therefore they don't "recognize" any particular claim to a championship; the best we get is a list (starts on p.81) of every selector's yearly pick. While this is a reasonable way to go in terms of quality sourcing with minimal external bias, many years list multiple teams that most practical fans would not consider that year's (co-)champion--i.e., only 8 of the last 50 years list a true consensus champ. The situation is clearly muddier prior to the introduction of the AP poll in 1936, compounded by the fact that the two major polls took their final votes before the bowl games until '67 (AP) & '73 (Coaches). &mdash; Scientizzle 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They do recognize selectors of national championships which you can see on NCAA.com (probably the link you have listed there, I just didn't look at it) The NCAA doesn't name a national champion for Division I FBS, like I said though, they do recognize certain selectors such as the AP, UPI, current BCS, etc. Which gives those titles legitimacy. And if a school has a legitimate claim to a national title and it is recognized by the NCAA, then it should be counted. It is really not up to us as editors or any particular website to determine how many titles a particular team has. If the school claims it and it is legitimate, there is really no argument after that as far as counting the title. Rtr10 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they certainly recognize "major selectors" (AP, UPI, Football Writers Association of America, National Football Foundation/College Football Hall of Fame, USA/CNN — USA/ESPN) for a "Consensus National Champions" section (since 1950, pg. 85). However, they also list for every year: Alderson System, Anderson & Hester, Berryman, Billingsley Report, Boand System, Caspar Whitney, College Football Researchers Association, Colley Matrix, DeVold System, Dickinson System, Dunkel System, Eck Ratings System, Football News, Harris Interactive, Helms Athletic Foundation, Houlgate System, International News Service, Litkenhous, Massey College Football Ratings, Matthews Grid Ratings, National Championship Foundation, New York Times, Parke Davis, Poling System, Rothman (FACT), Sagarin Ratings, Sporting News, Williamson System, and Wolfe. Many of these are the only selector of a particular team in a particular year. I can just imagine the bitching of Florida Gator fans if we wrote that Florida State shared the 1996 title based on their finish in Alderson's ratings... :) &mdash; Scientizzle 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Scientizzle did a great job of find and linking all the previous arguments that led to this situation. I still side with allowing all "claimed championships" in the infobox without changing the line.  The current USC article claims 11 in the text, anyway. --Bobak (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason we couldn't just split up the "national titles" section on the infobox into multiple sections? So USC's infobox would say Dickinson National Titles X, AP National Titles X, BCS National Titles X and so on. It would add a little more length to the infobox but it seems to me like the easiest way to defuse a reoccurring problem we have regarding this issue and provide a lot more clarity on where the total number championships listed came from Ryan2845 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a more practical split might be "wire" titles and "claimed" titles. Wire titles are the most widely recognized as legit, but they're practically and temporally limited (see above). Claimed titles can be easily sourced to each university's athletic department and don't require any WP:OR to justify the acceptance of one championship selector over another. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a very slippery and unnecessary slope in my opinion. Don't even like the wire title split. Most people, including SID's and media do not use any type of split as to saying well this team has x national championships, but only x "wire" national championships. Since the NCAA already recognizes certain selectors of National Championships this discussion is more of personal opinion as to whether certain titles are legitimate. If it is good enough for the NCAA, I believe it is good enough to count as long as the school claims the title. The whole argument as to Wire titles has always been and still is stupid to me. If the NCAA recognizes that selector then there shouldn't be much more debate. Rtr10 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't hesitate to share that opinion in the section below. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) ... whihh you did whilst I was writing here. Thanks! &mdash; Scientizzle 22:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See below for the newly-minted RfC. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think splitting "wire" (which isn't used very often in the media) and "claimed" is a good idea, and I also don't think an RfC was necessary. But here we are :-) --Bobak (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be a bit much, but I opted for the RFC because everyone seems to have a different opinion on what's best, the last consensus seemed to be uneasy even at the time and is almost two years old, and an RFC held on this page would have the greatest liklihood of gathering significant input. Worst-case sceniario, I think: no real consensus to change what we're currently doing, thus (by default) supporting the status quo. Best case: a clear consensus emerges, providing a recent discussion to which we can point if/when further concerns are voiced or edit wars started. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look on the sporting news alamanc regarding NCAA titles for college football, they grant USC 10 titles (1939 goes to Texas A&M). Not only that, but they USC the Dickinson System as a legitimate and a major determinate for the national title.

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/almanac/nfl/cfbnatch.html

And moreover, if you want to remove USC's 4 titles pre-AP, then you should remove them for Stanford, Michigan, Notre Dame and SMU as well. I have listed my arguements under the USC trojans talk page(under USC titles again.....). TO be fair, either we grant USC claims to the 4 titles they say, or remove all title given. Phenix621 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Until we can come to some consensus on this issue, I think it is fair to list titles for USC in the exact same manner as what is currently listed for every other school (e.g., Alabama, Michigan, ND, etc.).  Once we can determine consensus, we can change for all or for none.  It is simply unacceptable to hold one school's article to a different standard than is currently being practiced for every other school's article.  Newguy34 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC: National titles in Template:NCAAFootballSchool infobox
Edit warring consistently occurs regarding the appropriate number of national titles to be listed in a team's infobox when the number of AP/Coaches/BCS titles, claimed titles and/or other externally awarded titles varies for any particular team. I've detailed much of this in a thread above, but will lay out everything as clear as possible here. Template:NCAAFootballSchool is the widely-used infobox for college football school articles. On February 29, 2008, removed the "wire" from "Wire national titles", which had been added back on December 30, 2006, by  (during this Dec 2006-Jan 2007 discussion). The topic was broached once on Template talk:NCAAFootballSchool, referring to the aforementioned Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football thread, which seems to be the largest centralized discussion on the issue.
 * Background

What makes this a problem is that Div-1A football is the only college sport in which the NCAA doesn't run a championship, and therefore they don't "recognize" any particular claim to a championship; the best we get is a list (starts on p.81) of every selector's yearly pick. While this is a reasonable way to go in terms of quality sourcing with minimal external bias, many years list multiple teams that most practical fans would not consider that year's (co-)champion--i.e., only 8 of the last 50 years list a true consensus champ. The situation is clearly muddier prior to the introduction of the AP poll in 1936, compounded by the fact that the two major polls took their final votes before the bowl games until '67 (AP) & '73 (Coaches). Thus, in any given year, there are commonly multiple teams that have some arguable claim to a national title; some schools accept and promote all of these claims, some only recognize the "major" selectors.

This is a case where each potential listed number has problems and benefits, particularly regarding WP:NOR in whether and how Wikipedia should filter these different categories: Assuming that "national titles" is a field that has wide support for inclusion (in some way) in the infobox, I propose a few options that may address this issue and help (re-)establish consensus on Template:NCAAFootballSchool:
 * If we list only wire titles, as was the explicit practice since 2006, we're ignoring over 60 years of history (even if most pre-1936 championships are retroactive). Also, "Wire National Titles" may be (to steal the wording of ) "too esoteric for the non-college football fan...we have to write the articles for people who are not college football fans. We cannot expect the non-college football fan to know that 'Wire National Titles' excludes anything before 1936, is limited to one poll from 1936 to 1950 and limited to two polls after 1949." These poll results, though, are the most widely-accepted arbitor of football championships.
 * If we list the results of the NCAA's panopoly, we'll find big, highly-disputed numbers which include selectors that may not be regarded as mainstream enough. However, the NCAA is almost neutral-to-a-fault in its acceptance of multiple selectors and it's clearly a high-quality source.
 * If we list a school's claimed championships, as was argued by, the infobox may become the "product of a school's public relations propaganda". Individual schools have varying philosophies regarding their recognition of possible claims and certainly biases come into play. These claims, however, are readily sourced and commonly recognized by media outlets, even if fans and haters will argue incessantly about the validity of any particular disputed year.
 * Suggested solutions

Option 1: Leave the template as it currently is and list wire titles. Although, re-adding "wire" (or maybe "poll"?) to the infobox with a link to NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship would likely help ease terminological confusion.

Option 2: Leave the template as it currently is and list the number in the NCAA record book.

Option 3: Change the template to "Claimed national titles" and allow schools' individual claims to be listed.

Option 4: List both wire & claimed titles
 * Option 4a: On same line, i.e.,"National titles X wire (Y claimed)"
 * Option 4b: On separate lines, i.e.,"Wire national titles X Claimed national titles Y"

Further suggestions are welcome. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses

 * I'm not in favor of using just wire titles because even the oldest wire poll, the AP Poll, didn't come into existence until 1934 --so its simply incomplete (e.g. what makes Michigan's 1933 title lesser than Minnesota's 1934 title?). I'm for a variant of Option 3 where the line still says just "national titles" but we go with claimed titles.  If someone could show me a regular use of "wire" titles in the media, I might be swayed towards Option 4.  I just don't see "wire" titles much, in fact the few times I have seen a wire number, the same network has later conflicted itself by using the claimed numbers in a graphic.  As a current example, from watching a lot of college football, these days ESPN is using claimed.  --Bobak (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Side note: the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to older polls, the one that should shadow the pre-1968 AP and pre-1974 UPI polls, is that they released their final polls before the bowl games. But that's something we're not going to address for obvious reasons. --Bobak (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not even start with that stuff. That is a totally different discussion in itself and has very little to do with the actual titles. It's just the way they were awarded back then. To put it simple with that "it is what it is."Rtr10 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of those I would suggest Option 3. Seems very simple and a very reasonable solution in my opinion. Rtr10 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm for option 4 which covers both grounds and appeases both camps.↔NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Option 4b - it's a nice compromise since it allows display of the wire titles on their own and also whatever other titles the university may choose claim. If a university claims it then there is no reason it shouldn't be on here in some fashion Ryan2845 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer option 3 (whether it says "Claimed national titles" or just "National titles", per Bobak) because it takes the onus off of Wikpedia editors (WP:NOR territory) to justify any championship selector over another and simply reports what the university claims. It isn't perfect, but it includes 100% of the sport's history rather than just the more recent years. That said, option 4 is an acceptable compromise, I think, as wire polls are well-established as the top in the hierarchy of championship selectors. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I was referenced here, I will explain why I did that. It was just simply a matter of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). To the non-football inclined, they wouldn't know the difference between a wire national title or some other labled national title. Whether it's claimed only by a school or given by the AP, BCS, Coaches, Harris, etc., it's still a national title. Plus it just made more layout sense with the other 2 title fields, those being conference and division. So I hope that clarifies why I did that. This came about because of a past edit war over Ole Miss Rebels football and its national titles. Some people don't recognize them even though waaaayyyy back (1959; Declared national champs by Berryman, Billingsley, Dunkel and Sagarin, 1960; Declared national champs by Football Writers, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, National Championship Foundation and Williamson. and 1962; Declared national champs by Litkenhous) when they were awarded, they were recognized by news media and other reliable sources. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly support Option 4b, which I think strikes a nice, workable compromise that should be immune to edit-warring and constant revisions while simultaneously being educative about the differences among national championships. Any solution to this problem is necessarily going to require line-drawing (just as any Wikipedia article requires selectivity in terms of what sources to use, what information to include, etc.), and I think this is the best, most impartial, and most informative way.  In response to the question posed earlier in the discussion, yes, there is a big difference between titles won before the advent of the polls and titles won after: aside from being the only accepted measure of national championships in modern college football, it's much more difficult to be a wire national champion, since there are only two selectors, than it is the national champion of 1 of 7 or 10 or 12 or however many selectors.  If we are not going to list wire NCs solely, then we should at least note that very big distinction by splitting the NC field into "Wire" and "Claimed" subfields.  A similar solution seems to have been reached regarding the championship field in NFL team infoboxes: it's split into League Championships and Super Bowl Championships to reflect the different circumstances of each accomplishment without excluding either.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Option 4b for the reason Scientizzle said. By including both stated options, you offer the reader more information as well as the chance for him/her to make up him/her's mind about which is likely to be the more accurate version. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on Option 4b: Can someone answer the following two questions: What major media source still uses "wire" titles to count the total? What makes Michigan's 1933 title lesser than Minnesota's 1934 title?   --Bobak (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wire national championships are the usual criteria used in the mainstream media, but with wire services becoming something of an anachronism, they're not generally labeled such. Instead, they tend to denote them as "AP/Coaches" (or something similar), use the term "consensus national championships" synonymously, explicitly use 1934 or '36 as the starting point, or simply use the wire number in the tally.  That's a matter of terminology and style.  As to your second (rhetorical) question, that's already been addressed.  They were "won" in different eras under different circumstances and from selectors with stark differences in prestige and public acceptance.  Penn State in 1994 happened to be proclaimed a "national champion" by many of the same selectors that named Michigan for 1933, but nobody actually recognizes them as such or pretends that their NCF or Sagarin championship is "equal" to Nebraska's AP and Coaches titles.  The fact of the matter is that circumstances changed with the establishment of the AP and UPI Polls, which finally provided a means with widespread public and establishment currency for recognizing a national champion, and those different circumstances should be reflected in the article by distinguishing between wire and claimed national championships, which are contentious, inconsistent, and often retroactive.  Again, I point to the infobox for NFL teams, which splits the "Championships" field in two rather than lumping together "Super Bowl Championships" and "NFL/AFL Championships" as if they are the same thing.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're statement that "nobody actually recognizes them" isn't correct, since ESPN uses pre-wire polls (I already knew what the "wire" meant, thanks) to show "total national titles" in various info-graphics. Again, I haven't seen a major media source use the wire total as some superior measure, and if they have ever used it as a number, it hasn't been with any consistency.  There's nothing different between the football played in 1933 and 1934; in fact the very introduction of the AP poll was meant for pure marketing, as demonstrated by the recent article in the Wall Street Journal: In 1985, Alan J. Gould, father of the AP college football poll, explained at a press conference, "It was a case of thinking up ideas to develop interest and controversy between football Saturdays. . . . That's all I had in mind, something to keep the pot boiling."  Selling newspapers.  I don't see anything different between the AP/UPI-Coaches era, the BCS era or the era before the BCS.  The history of college football doesn't demonstrate otherwise. I feel the NFL analogy doesn't work because the college football didn't have different leagues that merged, the closest would be the split of D-IA and D-IAA in the late 1970s.  It isn't relevant here.  --Bobak (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement that "ESPN uses pre-wire polls...to show total national titles" isn't correct; ESPN rarely uses "national titles claimed" -- and when it does, it invariably qualifies the statistic by, you know, inclusion of the operative word "claimed." You may choose not to see anything different about the pre-wire poll era, the AP/UPI era, and the BCS era; that naked decision doesn't actually make it so.  The bottom line is that before the advent of the AP and UPI polls, there was no widely accepted method for declaring a national champion; after, there was.  All "national championships" are not created equal; winning one in an era where two selectors are popularly recognized is a substantially more rigorous accomplishment and is not near as disputable as winning one in an era with 8, 10, 12 purported selectors, none of whom enjoyed the individual prestige/acceptance of the wire polls.  And, of course, having to run the gauntlet of an actual playoff would be even harder and conclusive still.  If one day in the future a playoff was actually implemented, it would only be right for national championships won under that format to be further distinguished from wire national championships and pre-wire national championships.  As for your tangent about the alleged initial purpose of the AP Poll, it's purely academic.  It doesn't matter whether the AP created it only for purposes of "marketing"; what matters is that it gained the widespread acceptance and credibility that the pre-1934 selectors did not.  NBA team infoboxes distinguish between NBL and NBA championships.  NFL infoboxes distinguish between Super Bowl and League titles.  So should be the case here.  College football may not have an "official" system for determining a national champion, but the wire polls do serve as a de facto one - something that did not exist prior to their implementation.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong support option 3 Claimed championships are easier to figure out than wire NCs, especially prior to 1936. Anything prior to 1936, I believe, would be a mess to figure out and would likely lead to more arguments as to which selectors in that era should be counted, or which should just be thrown out the window. – LATICS   talk  07:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly support any but Option 1 Let's just make it consistent.  There is no magic to wire titles or those from the modern era.  The articles include the entire history of a particular program, not just that which the community deems relevant, so shouldn't the NC's be the same?  Newguy34 (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support option 3, though I prefer the word "Claimed" not be used. "Claimed" immediately connotes questionable legitimacy. Wikipedia shouldn't be the arbiter of which organizations' titles are more legit than others. All that matters for wikipedia is that the claim of the title have a recognized source, whether it be BCS, AP, Dickinson, Helms or whatever. I am strongly against option 4 because the word "Claimed" when juxtaposed with "Wire" exacerbates the problem of questionable legitimacy suggested by the word "claimed".Vantelimus (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Userbox
I was bored for a few minutes, so I made this. The image is one that I took myself at a Georgia Tech football game. Its included in a GT Football article, and I thought it made a good fit.

Fell free to add it to your user page. Ndenison <sup style="color:gray;font-family:verdana;">talk  23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * looks good!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad, buttt... Maybe it's just me. I'm not entirely sure that it's a great image for a userbox, as it's a bit difficult to see anything more than the green grass or the fans. I've used the same concept here, but with different images. – LATICS   talk  21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice, are you proposing it as a replacement to the old template (Template:User WikiProject CFB), or just an additional one? Maybe you can add the participants category (Category:WikiProject College football participants) to it too, like the old one does. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Another "west" restoration
I restored another "West incident" article at John D. Schwender. Turns out there's some good sources (washington post, chicago trib, etc) on the faculty of the school voting to discontinue the program for a year due to excessively rough practice sessions. Anyway, we're now at 35% of the West deletions getting restored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)