Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Oct2006

HELP! LSU pages being deleted
Someone has deemed the LSU season pages, including the National Championship 2003 season and the current 2006 season pages, delete worthy. I don't think they should be deleted. I would appreciate any help you guys could give me to help keep these pages on Wikipedia.
 * Yes, they are hitting the Longhorn pages also. I hope this won't gain steam.  Some of these articles contain a lot of content.  2005 Texas Longhorn football team has 80 sources, which is more than many Featured Articles.  The link to read the discussion and/or voice an opinion on deleting these pages is at Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team. Johntex\talk 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the AfD nomination has been withdrawn by the original nominator. The person who closed the AfD discussion is reluctant to take the time to remove all the AfD tags from all the effected articles and they have asked for help.   Can you please remove the AfD nomination tags from these articles if you encounter them?  Please also place the following on the Talk page of the article:


 * Thanks! Johntex\talk 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed all AFD tags and added the nomination withdrawn tags -Davis Lee 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

wow. I have contrubuted to alot of the LSU pages. Someone just trying to target this project. The community decided to keep alll the articles. --Zonerocks 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Major work to do
OK, the above AfD nomination is winding down, which is great, but let's see if we can turn that AfD into a positive for us. As Nmajdan has pointed out, our articles on 2005 USC Trojans football team and 2006 USC Trojans football team need major work. We can certainly have more dicsussion about what team seasons need their own articles and which do not, but I hope we can all agree that both of these articles are important to the project and should be kept. (2005 played for National Title, 2006 team is ranked second at close to the half-way point). Let's expand those articles! I have left a note at the USC Trojans page also.Johntex\talk 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 2
Has anyone else checked out Firefox version 2? It has a built in spell-checker that highlights unrecognized and misspelled words. Pretty useful for editing here. z4ns4tsu \talk 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I just installed it and then had to uninstall and restore my settings (thanks you MozBack) for 1.5 because 2.0 is fundamentally broken for keyboard scrolling - PgDn, PgUp and up/down cursor keys do not scroll the page as they do in 1.5. For a keyboard junkie like me (I detest mice) that is completely unacceptable. YMMV AU Tiger  ʃ talk /work 18:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They scroll fine for me in 2.0 :/ Dlong 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a little late on this one but yes I have 2.0 and love it. I've gone back through a lot of my articles and fixed the typos that apparently I've skipped over numerous times. Great tool for all editors!--NMajdan &bull;talk 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back cable!
Today I finally get cable tv back in my home after being without for almost two months. I'll finally be able to actually watch football games again and maybe be more useful to the project. Anyway, not that it's really important to anyone other than me, but I felt like sharing. z4ns4tsu \talk 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We Are Marshall
The upcoming movie, We Are Marshall, about the plane crash that killed the entire Marshall University football team and coaching staff in 1970 is getting a lot of mention on tonight's football game on ESPN2. I've added a stub for Jack Lengyel (the real life coach who is a key character in the movie). Given that Wikipedia is going to get lots of hits from people googling as it comes closer to the time of the release of the movie, it might be a good idea if we have articles for Rick Tolley and anything else that might be of interest on the topic. BigDT 01:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I added what I could to these articles. Pictures would be an excellent addition to these articles, but very difficult to come by. Good idea on the heads up. -- MECU ≈ talk 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dorrell as MID, Ty as LOW
Why is Karl Dorrell's article mid-importance, and Tyrone Willingham's article low-inportance? Not only does Ty have the better record currently, but he means more to the sport, no? Thanks for your reply! --68.190.212.208 04:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "rules" that were developed after a lengthy discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment (scroll to bottom). Accordingly, both should be rated "low" since neither are coaches of Top25 teams or critical to the history of college football. I happen to disagree with the classification for coaches in this instance and think all current DI-A coaches should be Mid. Also, these are just guidelines and an individual rater can go up or down in importance if they desire and can justify it. This explains what happened here: User:Nmajdan rated Ty according to the rules and I rated Karl with my own preference. I have since changed Karl to low since it therefore follows the rules (and my preferences are moot). In any event, the "importance" isn't so much how important the person/item is, it's how badly a nice article written about it is. You should join up and you can help out -- or, you can just apply the "rules" without joining up. Thanks for bringing it up. -- MECU ≈ talk 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo Database
I just discovered a logo database at: There are quite a few logos, though there are some gaps. Even bowl games are included. There are even historical logos and it gives years of when the logo was used. Remember, if you use any of these it must be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) and used under Fair Use thus requiring a justification. If anyone has a good "stock" justification, could you please post it here? I uploaded the Navy logo Image:United State Naval Academy Logo-sports.gif so we'll see how that goes. (Yes, I know I typoed States) -- MECU ≈ talk 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is great, Mecu, thanks for the link.
 * As Mecu mentions, logos must have a fair use justification types on the image page when you upload. The link Mecu provided gives Wikipedia's rules for what can be used under fair use.  With regards to the description, a good description needs to include the following points:
 * 1. An explanation of the fact that no free alternative is possible because this is a logo.
 * 2. An explanation of why the use of the logo here does not infringe upon the rights of the copyright holder. (E.g. small in size, not likely to confuse the reader, not used on a commercial item, etc.)
 * 3. The source of the image.
 * 4. The article where the image is used. (Fair use images must appear in and remain in an article or they will be deleted).  An image may be used fairly on more than one article, but each article requires its own description of why the image is usable on that article.
 * It is prefereable that you put these points into your own words, rather than cutting and pasting. For one example of a fair use justification for a sports logo, you might see Image:SBC_Red_River_Rivalry_100_year_logo.JPG.  So far, knock on wood, no one has questioned this justification or use of the image in the relevant article. Johntex\talk 19:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any question that those logos are allowed. Using A's logo to illustrate A is without question permitted. Using A's logo to illustrate B is not. BigDT 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The question in the past has not been either of those occurences. Instead, what was challenged and I'm not sure was ever resolved was using B's logo to illustrate a section about B on a page about A. I don't know if the conflict was ever resolved, but since I havn't seen the logos pop up again, I would guess that the decision was to not do it.  z4ns4tsu  \talk 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no firm decision was ever properly made into policy. In fact, one of the chief proponents of taking the logos out, Kelly Martin, has left the project under something of a cloud.  I firmly believe that the use of B's logo in a section about B on an article titled A is clearly fair use.  I simply haven't had time to get back to that particular debate.  As far as I know, we are still awaiting a mediator to act on the case.  I'll look into it when I have more time. Johntex\talk 23:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)