Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Sep2007

Tis the season, beginning today!
All right fellow loving disciples of college football, our religion begins another official season today. Let us be the monks who ensure that articles are properly updated and revised as the season progresses. ...and take some damn pictures (if you can) :-) --Bobak 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And watch my #2 LSU Tigers blow away Mississippi State tonight on ESPN. Someone else will have to update the 2007 LSU Tigers football team page, because I'll be too busy celebrating the win! Seancp 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same boat on certain games, but remember that most of the articles you can hang a reference off of usually come out the next day anyway. --Bobak 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who goes to games, please remember to TAKE A CAMERA with you. I have a new camera for this season ... 7 megapixels and 10x zoom that I bought on sale for only $200. -- B 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From my limited picture taking experience, the "exposure time" is a more important factor for action shots.  Corpx 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And, quite possibly, the zoom (unless some of you are some major donors/members of the media). But yes, B, as my earlier call to arms on photos --this is not only an opportunity for in-game shots (which are great for season pages) but also photos of schools, traditions, players and coaches. --Bobak 17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont forget message boards either.  Most posters will be glad to license out their work(s) under cc2.5 Corpx 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Another good way to get closeup shots is to go to games early. You can usually get in a few hours before the game and get pictures of coaches and players as they come in the field and just tell the ushers you want to snap a few pictures and they might let you in the area, especially if you tell them you're working for Wikipedia. :) MECU ≈ talk 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Has that seriously worked for you? :-p  Also, remember a lot of programs have pre-game events/traditions where players walk to the stadium through or very close to fans (even at away games, coming off the bus).  Those make great, though sometimes crowded, opportunities as well!  --Bobak 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also try to keep game summaries to the team article only, don't create articles on games unless there has been historical significance per WP:N. Currently #5 Michigan is close to being upset by a Division-II school, unless it says upset of the century or something, keep the info to the 2007 Michigan football team article. I'm saying this because I expect some newer users create articles on their teams games. Does anyone else agree. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They did get upset, 34-32 (wow!). I'm not sure it's worthy of an article by itself either though. MECU ≈ talk 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As an Appalachian State alumnus - please realize that the Mountaineers play at the FCS (I-AA) level. We are not a DII team. It's unfortunate that the BCS (I-A) folks are so clueless about the other divisions that play some GREAT football on Saturdays.Geologik 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They are the top Division-II school in the nation, not that big of an upset, if it was like a 0-10 Division-II team, then it will be the upset of the century and deserves it's own article, this doesn't. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you purposely being obtuse? Appalachian State is not a Division II team. The Mountaineers play in the same Division as Michigan. And based on everything I'm reading - it is quite possibly the biggest upset in college football. However, I agree it doesn't need it's own article. That's pushing it a little. ;) Geologik 20:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a huge upset, but not the biggest of all time. The point spread was only set at -27.5 (usually a good indicator for how big of an upset something is).  The record for biggest overcome point spread is -38. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 27 August Causeway Carriage ( PROD by User:Jaranda; "...a Victorian era carriage awarded to each season's winner of Causeway Classic College football game...." )
 * 27 August Causeway Classic ( PROD by User:Jaranda; "...the annual College football game between the UC Davis Aggies and the Sacramento State Hornets." ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 27 August Palmetto Capital City Classic ( PROD by User:Jaranda; "...an annual event in Columbia, South Carolina centered around a college football game played between Benedict College and Johnson C. Smith University." ) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Another proposed deletion
I just created an article on the Appalachian State upset of Michigan. It's been nominated for deletion. If anyone wants to comment on it, go here. — Dale Arnett 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize there are a lot of articles like this here, but can we make these type of articles on WikiNews from here on ?  What we're doing is covering an event that is also covered by lots of reliable sources.     This type of stuff is really meant to WikiNews Corpx 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently not since Wikinews uses the CC license which is not compatible with the GFDL. We would need every author to agree to the relicense. More hassle than it's worth it seems. MECU ≈ talk 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the media: LA Times, NY Times, SI, ESPN, have all called alternatively "the" but mostly "one of the" greatest upsets of all time. So, I'd say this is article worthy --it's just amazing to have it the first "week" after the Boise State-Oklahoma game. --Bobak 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Another proposed deletion
Please see Articles for deletion/2006 Hawaii Bowl. Johntex\talk 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal nominations
Another notice for WPCFB members. We have eight images up for Selected Image for our Portal. I ask that everybody take a look at them and vote. Hopefully, we'll continue to have frequent nominations as the season progresses. Also, there is one old Selected Article nomination that needs more voters to determine a majority. Check out the nominations at Portal:College football/Selected Content/Nominations.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for trophy games
I put together an infobox for trophy games, feel free to take a look at it and comment. I took a look around at different articles and it seems there is a hodge podge out there. One standard seems to to have a toc for who won which years, such as Paul Bunyan's Axe, but it seems kind of messy to me to have logo images scattered about. It also seems a little redundant to have that toc listing the years each team won, followed by in many cases a complete list of scores, which gives you the same info. My main hope with the infobox was to integrate the logos into a better layout and this is what I ended up with. Here is the article: Floyd of Rosedale, and here is the template: User:Gopher backer/sandbox7. Feel free to do whatever with it. Gopher backer 06:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for notability of college football games
Due to the ongoing discussion on deletion and possible transwiki of 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game to WikiNews, I suggest that the project hash out ASAP workable criteria for inclusion of individual college football game articles in Wikipedia.

Initial ideas:
 * Games that were instrumental in deciding a national championship — Definitely in.
 * Other games of historic significance may be in or out, depending on many factors. For example:
 * 2007 Fiesta Bowl is borderline because of how recent it is, though the fact that all future major upsets will probably be compared to it (in fact, there are MANY sources drawing parallels between App State-Michigan and this game) may sway things in favor of Wikipedia.
 * Hail Flutie would likely stay, as it's still vividly remembered almost 25 years later.
 * Games that were important to the history of a specific school, but not necessarily to college football at large — Move encyclopedic content to the articles on the individual teams.

I'll welcome all proposals. — Dale Arnett 05:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have "2007  Football Season" page and I really do not see any need for having any articles for games.  All these individual game articles do is provide an intro ("leading up" to the game) and a rehash of the box score.   Both these are easily provided by the season article.   Flutie's hail mary is notable, but is the rest of the game notable?   I dont think I've ever seen any other play from the game.   I personally think it should be mentioned in 1984 BC Season or 1984 Miami season and a redirect placed.
 * These are appropriate, but for WikiNews as all they do is collect information from the various reliable sources covering the game + add a rehash of the box score. Corpx 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some more thoughts. This isn't a vote for or against any article, but more a discussion of logistical issues. First, many of the games currently in the College football games category involve teams for which no season article exists. Some of them even involve schools that don't have a football article at all. To use the Flutie game as an example, Miami has a football article, but nothing on that season, and BC does not have a separate football article at all (BC football is a section in its athletics article (see correction). Second, some game articles may end up "swallowing" the season articles in terms of content (I'm thinking about the 2007 Fiesta Bowl in relation to 2006 Boise State, and to a lesser extent 2006 Oklahoma). — Dale Arnett 06:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. BC now has a football article. However, it still doesn't have a separate article on that season. — Dale Arnett 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Bowl games are notable and deserve their own article (Even the lowest bowl game), but regular season games, unless something truly whacky happens that can't be included into a season page elsewhere, like was mentioned above that things like Fifth down don't have a season page and would likely be too long to be included in a season page, shouldn't exist. MECU ≈ talk 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that bowl games are notable enough and deserve articles if people are willing to do them. The classic games already mentioned and perhaps others, like the so-called "Games of the Century" probably deserve articles especially if there is no article to merge them into. I don't think that a regular season game that has happened in the last few years is automatically not notable, but obviously most aren't and don't deserve articles. 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game is a good article and has already survived AfD. I think games on that scale should have articles, but the rest need to be merged. Phydend 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indiviual Major Bowl games in my opinion are notable, like Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, but not the lower ones, propose this in the new Notabilty (sports) guideline. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In a drive to improve 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, the article grew to the point where parts of it had to be broken out according to Summary Style. The result was the creation of 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game, and 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game.  ALL THREE of those articles survived AfD with an early closure One of these already survived AfD with a KEEP decision and have now TWO have made it to Good Article status.  The team finished the season in the 2006 Rose Bowl and I have no doubt that this article will be able to make it to GA or FA status before long.
 * My point is that we can have good, even great articles written about individual college football games. They do NOT merely duplicate what is available from any individual sport for several reasons:
 * We can bring together facts from multiple sources. For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
 * We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
 * We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
 * Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
 * Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.
 * We have made a start at a notability proposal I think we should reactivate the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability and try to come up with a guideline that will show how valuable articles like this can be if they are done well. Johntex\talk 23:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction only one of the articles survived AFD, another one is heading for a Delete concensus in AFD and it isn't a GA, the last one never reached AFD. The notabilty proposal has been rejected, and I merged some of it to the new sports notabilty proposal, which is sort-of WP:MUSIC for sports articles. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jaranda. I was mistaken that all 3 survived AFD and that all 3 are GA.  Only 2 are GA.  Regardless, my point stands:  These can become good or great articles.  They will get there faster if we don't have to waste time protecting them from deletion.  Also, the notability proposal was not truly rejected.  It never got enough discussion to be either accepted or rejected.  Hopefully this deletion-spree will cause people to take the time to work something out. Johntex\talk 00:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather have Bowl games as part of the season article, unless it is a MNC game.  All the reasons JohnTex mentioned above makes the case (to me) why these type of articles are much more appropriate for WikiNews.   Sometimes, trimming is much better than making a new article, as we continually see with trivia sections + plot summaries at AFD.  Corpx 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One problem with merging is that, increasingly, both teams have a season article. That means that information on the bowl game would have to be merged into two spots.  That obviously duplicates information, which is somewhat inefficient, and it also leads to the chance for the information to diverge and to become contradictory.
 * Another problem with merging is that it makes information hard to find. If you are reading about one of the two teams involved you might be able to find it, but what if you are trying to research the history of the bowl game?  The reader is better served if the bowl game is its own article.  Then in can be in multiple categories including a category for the bowl game as well as for each of the two teams. Johntex\talk 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good thing, to have coverage in two places.  Each can focus more on the individual team more Corpx 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Time for a separate college football wiki?
I feel really bad now about opening up such a can of worms on the topic of college football games.

It now looks like virtually all of the game articles will get shot down sooner or later. Also, I really believe the next step will be that someone will start putting up season articles for AfD, since a large part of them will from necessity be game recaps.

Maybe it's time that someone started a separate college football wiki, if it hasn't already been done, which can include team articles, season articles, people, places, history, and yes, games of true historic importance. Now, I don't have the time myself for something that ambitious... but I'd like to see what other folks think about this idea. — Dale Arnett 04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Added comment: Many of the existing articles on individual games can't be put on Wikinews because they predate that project. Also, it's been pointed out that Wikipedia content can't be transwikied to Wikinews because of incompatible licenses, which means that even for those articles that conceivably could go into Wikinews, they would have to be redone from scratch. (Depending on the article, that might be a good thing, but still...) Which makes a dedicated college football wiki something worth considering, IMHO. — Dale Arnett 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's needed, Division-I teams, and seasons are notable by defualt, games are the issues though, if they are of true historic importance, keep them, if it's a normal game, delete or merge to the indiviual season. It's fairly simple. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be too sure about it. There are some pretty strong arguments out there that no games at all should be included, with the possible exception of national championship games. — Dale Arnett 04:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the Michigan game is going to end up as no consensus, most of the other games placed in AFD are regular season games which has no claim of major notabilty at all, and one bowl game with a very weak claim of notabilty. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Michigan game was a clear-cut keeper. It closed as Speedy Keep with strong consensus. Johntex\talk 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

http://ncaawiki.com ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for Wikipedia to chase off valuable contributors to work on another project. Most contributors to sports articles also help with other topics - why should they split their time between two projects?  Wikipedia already provides a framework and important guidelines like WP:NPOV.
 * Instead of contemplating leaving or splitting our time, we need to be confident and carry the day. Sports are an important part of the world.  Wikipedia aims to be comprehensive.  Therefore, we need to show people why these types of articles are important.
 * The people who cry out "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information" are missing the mark. These are not collections of graphs and statistics.  They are encyclopedia articles written in prose.  Nothing in Wikipedia's policy prohibits them and we need to remind everyone of that fact. Johntex\talk 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I choose to stay and "fight" (the good fight) for college football's place on Wikipedia. --Bobak 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been away from Wikipedia for a week or so and I'm amused and somewhat annoyed at this brouhaha over sportspeople, seasons and game notability. After all, this is Wikipedia where you can find articles for every entry on the List of Star Trek episodes, the List of The Simpsons episodes, the List of Family Guy episodes most of which have zero reliable sources that discuss them, not to mention characters from Firefly (TV series) like Derrial Book which also have zero sources. If the base standard for notability is being the subject of verifiable reliable sources, clearly the college football subjects under discussion here have such. Why the double standard? AU Tiger » talk 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New article question
I am thinking of creating an article called List of current and former LSU Tigers football players because the list is getting quite long on the main page, and it has been argued (and I agree) that the main page lists too many players, many who weren't even that prominent. Also, what criteria determines "prominence"? So I figure a separate list would alleviate this, while not removing link to players who some consider to be not prominent. I would appreciate any thoughts or opinions. I don't want to create it if its just going to get AfD'd. Seancp 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think a list of players would violate WP:NOT and WP:NOT.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but it seems that the WP:NOT#LIST policy is selectively enforced. From a few posts up: List of The Simpsons episodes, Family Guy, Star Trek, etc. I have a hard time understanding the logic of Wikipedia sometimes. Seancp 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, you're proposing article-izing (catchy, huh?) a category. At least with the TV episode lists, they have plot summaries.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how article-izing it is a problem. How is it any different than, say, Boston Red Sox all-time roster?  Isn't that the same thing as Category:Boston Red Sox players?  Seancp 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you took the first step I was just going to recommend - find a precedent. Looks like there is an article for every MLB team's all-time roster. So, at least if your article does get AFDed, you now have an argument. Knock yourself out.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Boston Red Sox all-time roster is better because it contains names of players that haven't had an article written about them yet. Seancp 18:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And thinking about it even more, maybe a better name for the article would be LSU Tigers football all-time roster, to mirror the other pages like that. Seancp 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For football examples: List of New York Giants players, New England Patriots players Seancp 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps just listing players during the times they played as part of the historical article(s) when no season/roster article exists? For example, if you had LSU Tigers under X, you would list the players that played under him during that time period. Then it's not just a list but also valuable info because you can see Coach X coached all these players. It gets tricky for coaches like Joe Pa, but even his career is split up. But it still might not be split up enough. Figure 25 names for 40 years, that's 1000 players. Yes, some players will be duplicated when the coaching changes. They're duplicated on each consecutive season page too. But if my idea flops, I like the NY Giants list method. But I don't think there should be redlinks, since all college players aren't deserving of an article, but all NFL players are. MECU ≈ talk 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if a list like this existed, I would prefer every name to be in a sortable table with columns such as "Name," "#," "Position," "First year," "Last year," and "Coach." That way if I wanted to get an alpha list, I could, or a numerical list, I could, or a list by position, I could, or a list of all players under a coach, I could, or all players that started in 1979 or all players that left the team in 2000, I could. But it would be a long list. And yes, no redlinks. If there is not article, just don't wikilink it. Not all CFB players are deserving of an article.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like that idea. And I agree with the no red-links comment, to an extent.  LSU still has some All-Americans that don't have articles written about them.  I think that a red-link is ok if an article is warranted, otherwise, there's no need to list the walk-on backup punter. Seancp 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also like the idea of a sortable table. We should be making more use of that technology. Johntex\talk 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about putting it at WikiSource since it'll just be a list of players. I personally would vote it for deletion if an AFD came up, as I feel like these are quite "indiscriminate" Corpx 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should AfD Boston Red Sox all-time roster. Seancp 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many people hate me at AFD for me to start a nomination. :/ Corpx 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think they hate you. They may hate having to continually defend useful articles from deletion.  It consumes time we could be using to write/improve articles. :-) Johntex\talk 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I feel like its a shame that I should even have to ask questions before I create an article.  The spirit of Wikipedia is to "BE BOLD" but I can't be bold because I fear that everything will be challenged.  It's frustrating and discouraging.  It's not supposed to be this way. Seancp 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the line between "indiscriminate collection of information" and encyclopedia is crossed way too much on a variety of topics. (I'm not referring to your proposed article here, but just saying in general).  I just do not feel like an encyclopedia should serve as a school's media guide Corpx 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, well, the people at Encyclopedia Britannica feel that an encyclopedia shouldn't contain a List of Pokémon characters, but Wikipedia does, and that's what makes it great. Making Wikipedia exclude information that many people are interested goes against the spirit of the project.  Seancp 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I feel will make this be the place for anything and everything.  Corpx 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not being a part of a school's media guide if the articles are written in WP:NPOV.
 * Corpx, let's look just at UT articles for a moment. Don't you want our coverage of The University to be comprehensive?
 * I think we are trying to be as up front about Charles Whitman as we are Vince Young. The Godzillatron article talks about its claim to being the biggest scoreboard in college sports, but also explains the criticism it has received for all the advertising it spews out.  Texas Fight, and Hook 'em Horns and Bevo all give credit to rival schools in helping forge these traditions.
 * The Big Bertha explains Big Bertha's claim to being the biggest bass drum but also explains rival claims to the title. Just because we have these articles does not imply anything about trying to promote the school or whitewash its history.
 * The 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article talks about the successes, but also explains when they stunk it up, such as in the 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game. The 2006 Texas Longhorn football team goes into just as much, if not more, detail on the losses as the victories.  The 2007 Texas Longhorn football team article already has a sizable section on player arrests and suspensions.  Comprehensive coverage has nothing to do with being a media guide - it has to do with being complete, balanced, and informative.
 * We are not making a "a place for anything and everything". We are making a place for comprehensive, NPOV encyclopedia articles. Johntex\talk 06:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Idea to add to Coach infobox
I don't have the time to add this until next week, but I had the idea to add contract information to the Coach infobox. Length, guaranteed money and buyout information. Something like "Contract: $45M through 2013, $1.5M buyout", would require a cite of course. So this article would be a good example of things to start including. I don't expect this to be controversial, but feel free to comment. MECU ≈ talk 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against that. I think the buyout is a little extraneous for the infobox, but the salary would be nice. You may also want to check out this website. I may add that field to the infobox today if I have time.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this information released for private school coaches? Plus, I know coaches get a 1 time bonus every few years they're at an institution. How do you factor that in? Corpx 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the field. The bonus structure for coaches is so complex that I think it should be left off the infobox. I mean, if somebody asked you how much you made, would you factor in your bonus? For the Bob Stoops and Mack Brown article, I just added their yearly salary. I am not sure about private schools, its a good question.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know Mack was technically the highest paid coach two or 3 years ago because of a 1 time bonus of 3 million (I think). So, would you add bonuses like that to the salary of that year? Corpx 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I think when you add in all bonuses, it gets too complex. Only the contractual yearly salary should be listed in the infobox, in my opinion. More details on bonuses could be in the actual article.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Slight fix of Template:NCAATeamSeason
I changed the format of the links to the previous and next seasons on the above template. It looks cleaner and is better centered, which was an issue we've had in the past with the template. Let me know what you think and definitely let me know if you find an article my change broke. I checked several football articles and a basketball and baseball article and they look fine.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know if this is what did it but after a check of a few CFB 2007 articles, none of the team images are showing up (and the image's name is still shown on the edit page). Just thought I would bring this up as I was doing a random check of all the articles that needed to be updated with today's early results. SolonHawk 20:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think it was User:Soxrock trying to employ some fair use requirement with an edit that wasn't appropriate (in my, and another user's, opinion). MECU ≈ talk 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We have our first Featured Article
I am incredibly pleased to announce that 2005 Texas Longhorn football team has been recognized as a featured article. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this article through edits, suggestions, and peer review.

Now that we've gotten one through, hopefully we can start progressing others through the FA system.

It seems that every FA nomination is unique in terms of what gets scrutinized. However, certain things took a lot of tedious time to fix and so I will list them out here in the hopes that other editors can avoid these problems while the are writing, instead of having to go back and fix them all: You can check the nomination page for more detail. The nomination even got restarted once because there were so many little things being flagged and fixed.
 * 1) WP:HYPHEN problems - sports scores are supposed to be separated by an "–", not a "-". So it should be "42–38", not "42-38".  That is a pain in the *ss.
 * 2) Likewise, WP:MOS specifies non-breaking spaces between numbers and the following word, like "220 yards rushing".
 * 3) Consistency and completeness in the reference citations, including the name of the publisher, page numbers for a non-web reference, etc.

Thanks again for everyone's help. We can all be proud of this milestone for the project. Johntex\talk 05:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! --Bobak 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Combine coaching templates
Can anybody think of a way for us to combine all the coach templates that may be on a coach's article into one? Take a look at Howard Schnellenberger. He has five coaching templates. I would really like to have a way to keep the individual templates, but, to have another "container" template that combines them into one and hides them. Basically, kinda like WikiProjectBannerShell except for coaching templates. Of course, we want to keep the custom colors that exist for the individual school. Any ideas? Should we request assistance at WP:VPT or WP:WPT?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 03:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't we just create something like the BannerShell that encompasses all the coaching templates (there are worse examples, I can't remember who at the moment tho, but there are some stubs that have like 7 of those and that's it)? It would just collapse itself like "Coaching templates".. and we only use it when there are 3 or more? If anyone could figure out how to colorize the hide/show link so it's not the default blue we could just use that and have it collapse when there are 3 or more to also help keep it smaller... That's the only reason we didn't incorporate the hide/show in to the CFB nav template. That would be the first option to pursue I think. MECU ≈ talk 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Papa Bowden vs JoePa
There is a tremendously disruptive dispute between PSU fans and FSU fans at and. The PSU fans want it noted that some of Bowden's wins were at a school that is currently in the division formerly known as I-AA (although at the time he was there, it was before the DI split happened). The FSU fans want to retaliate by noting that JoePa was hospitalized during some of his wins. It would be great if some more uninvolved people would help revert vandalism, opine, and referee. -- B 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with both of those points included in the article (properly cited, of course) but that should not affect the total win count as given by the NCAA for each coach. Also, given that both coaches have been coaching a LONG time, isn't it very possible that Paterno also played teams that are in a lower division now?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 15:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Before I begin, I'll start by stating that I'm a Penn Stater and I've been editing JoePa and the other Penn State pages for a while now. The info about JoePa's and Bowden's wins against non-I-A teams has been on the JoePa page for a while after some talk on its talk page, but this all came to a head (and in turn an edit war) when some PSUer went over to Bowden's page and tried to add the same I-AA info and started an edit war over there. Some childish FSUer then started vandalizing the JoePa page and now we have a mess of an article.
 * I could frankly care less whether the info about non-I-A teams is in there or not. It looks like JoePa will probably overtake Bowden again at some point based on how the teams are doing this season so this will all be moot anyway. (Btw- Nmajdan, I believe the numbers currently cited are based on wins over teams *currently* not in I-A.) Billma 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whynot just have the same standard applied to both? Wins overall. Wins vs. current DI-A. Wins when they were actually at the game. ? MECU ≈ talk 01:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the latter is a readily available stat. The former would be an interesting chart to add to both articles.  -- B  01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

2 FAs related to college football
Here are two more FAs that are related to college football: The Aggie Bonfire tradition was formed to help pump up Texas A&M prior to their rivalry game against Texas. The tradition would not exist if not for college football. The Aggie band is a marching band and those have a military tradition. Therefore, one could argue that A&M would have a band even without college football, but I think it is safe to say that their half-time performances are what has made the band famous.
 * Aggie Bonfire
 * Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

I think the pageantry of college football (traditions, mascots, rivalry trophies, etc) are a large part of what makes college football great. I believe those two articles (and others like them) should be tagged as being a part of this project. Thoughts? Johntex\talk 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the bonfire is okay, but the Band has their own project. We can co-sponsor it, but since they're both FAs, some people might get upset if we just stick our banner on it like we helped, but didn't since it's already an FA. Unless of course we improve it... MECU ≈ talk 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (darned edit conflict...) I definitely think the bonfire is a part of this project, as the most famous (and awful) moment was when it collapsed before a game back in the day. I'd also like to think bands are a part of us, but I'd like to get more opinions. --Bobak 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who hoo! I beat bobak! MECU ≈ talk 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there is a freely licensed photo of the fire being used in the article, why is there a non-free one in the lead? -- B 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are two different types of bonfires from different years. The top on is an actual Aggie Bonfire from the days when the event was school-sponsored (before the tragedy).  The other one is one of the more recent, unofficial "student bonfires". Johntex\talk 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam to be on the lookout for
I've seen a lot of player "fan sites" lately. A lot of them are just link aggregators. They usually have the athletes name as their domain name. See for an example. Several times, I've seen ones like this where the person adds a link to the website and an interwiki link to a non-existent page. (I'm not sure what that accomplishes.) I imagine that a lot of these websites are owned by the same person or organization. These aren't real fan sites where there is an actual community. Has anyone else noticed links like this? -- B 07:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine the interwiki link is included to make it look more legitimate when editors glance at diffs on recent changes and watchlists. <span style="font-family:arial, sans; color:#EF6521;">AU <span style="color:#000063; font-family:arial, sans;">Tiger » <span style="font-family:arial, sans; font-size:x-small;">talk 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... take a look at this - . Subsequent to me posting this, a Tagalong article for Darren McFadden was created.  There are several articles on athletes over there ... all started out as copy/pastes of the English and I would bet that they were translated using a Google translator.  All of them have "fan site" links.  Call me paranoid, but I bet that this is just an advertising campaign and that someone is using the Tagalog Wikipedia to promote their spam links.  With only 7000 total articles, somehow I doubt that American college athletes are high atop their priority list. -- B  17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard. -- B 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good news aggregator
Found a site that links to a lot of news articles about a given topic, whether that topic is a team or a player or a specific sports writer. SportsUltra.com. Definitely handy when writing game updates for the yearly articles. For instance check out the articles about Sam Bradford or Colt McCory or Western Michigan. If you login, you can select what teams and players you want displayed on your main page. And no, I'm not affiliated with this site at all, I just know it will help me write the game updates since I can simply go to this one website that links to many different articles.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 04:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee Volunteers football
A new editor, User:Drw859001 has been editing this article with text that clearly violates WP:NPOV; I have tried to have this user discuss the changes on the talk page, but he refuses to listen. Additionally, I have already reverted him twice, so I cannot do so again without violating WP:3RR; any help would be appreciated. Dlong 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message with him ... it's important that when interacting with a good-faith user, you leave a welcome message (like {{subst:welcome}}) if they haven't already been given one in addition to whatever other messages you leave. A new user doesn't necessarily know about our content policies so it's important to give them something to look at. -- B  00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Help please
In the wake of Syracuse's upset over Louisville, I noticed that this Sports Illustrated page claims that Syracuse's victory is the biggest upset ever in terms of points spread (at 36.5 points). However, there's currently an article called 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game that claims that title at 38 points against the spread. Only one source claims that the spread was 38 points and two others say 37 points (and the SI article says it's at 36 points). Who's right here? Does the 1985 game even deserve an article?

Thanks in advance. CardinalHawk 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Covers.com says that the 1985 game was -33.5 . It's distinctly possible that they are comparing apples to oranges.  38 could have been the line at kickoff vs 33.5 as the opening line or vice versa (that would be a huge move, but stranger things have happened.)  -- B  21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or they could be comparing the line from different sources. Perhaps SI does a line on each game and uses their stats for that. It's like ESPN always uses the ESPN/Coaches Poll for the rankings of teams but other sources may use the AP. MECU ≈ talk 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Request a review of an article
Now that we have our first FA, we have a good template for the perfect year-specific team article. I have been making little changes to the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team article over the last few days including some of the changes that were requested for the UT article. I think I've made all the dash changes and added non-breaking spaces. I've tried to remove all the little NPOV/fluff wording. Anyway, I am asking that project members, especially those active in the UT FA process, take a look at the article and let me know what you think. Thanks.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello NMajdan, I am reading the article right now. It is very good.  Congratulations on some very engaging writing.  I do spot a few problems throughout the text:
 * References - there are several complete paragraphs that have no references.
 * Verb tense - there are a lot of places where the present tense is still used; I think past tense would be more appropriate.
 * Reference format - There are a lot of nit-picky problems here. For instance, some publications are italicized, others are not.  Some give the date of publication, others do not.
 * Tone - this is something of a judgment call. I firmly believe in the general concept that encyclopedia articles do not have to be dull.  I think overall, you have done a very good job of making a neutral presentation of the facts.  However, there are a few places where I am a little concerned about the encyclopedic tone.  For instance this passage:
 * "After the previous year's "disappointing" 8–4 season, the Sooners looked to return to form in 2006. Standout running back Adrian Peterson came into the season healthy and ready to present his Heisman credentials."
 * "Return to form" and "present his Heisman credentials" both side somewhat casual to me.
 * Would you like to open up a peer review on this article? If so, then I will put more detailed thoughts at the peer review.  Again, great work. Johntex\talk 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments.
 * Yes, I am aware of this and I hope to resolve this next week. Mostly, I'll need to go back and find summaries of the games that I can cite. I have emailed SoonerSports.com because a lot of their 2006 game summaries are dead links.
 * I thought I took care of this but I guess I missed some. I'll read through again.
 * I feel I have been detailed enough with my references. If for some reason something is not italicized, then that is an issue with the cite template. I have used a cite template with every citation. If a date of publication was not provided, then the source did not have one. But, I'll take another look at this to make sure.
 * I tried to go through a remove a lot of the unencyclopedic tone. I am aware of these lines and, well, I have no defense. I'll try to rephrase "return to form" to something like "return to prior success" and I'll probably just remove the Heisman reference. I hope there are not too many other instances of this. I did remove quite a bit of "boosterism" already.
 * I'm hesitant to open up a PR mainly because I do not believe they work. Once you get to the GA or A (near FA quality) level, I think the effectiveness of PR diminishes. Besides, the prior peer reviews on this article (1, 2) have been less than helpful. However, I will start a third if you feel it necessary.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Nmajdan, a peer review may not be the best way to go. I was more thinking of it as a place to put comments.  I don't know if this page is the best place.  If you prefer, I am happy to just use the article talk page. That may be simplest.  Best, Johntex\talk 15:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Article talk page will be fine.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been busy adding references to the article over the past month. I would appreciate it if anyone would take a look at it and leave whatever comments on the talk page. Thanks.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at College rivalry
Someone who knows the score ought to take a look at College rivalry and Talk:College rivalry. It appears that IP editors have been inventing rivalries. One editor who wanted to stop the vandalism seemed to write up a request for page protection but posted it in the College rivalry article instead of at WP:RFPP. I'm going to be bold and try to clean up the mess but I have very, very little knowledge in the subject area so someone else might want to look a bit more carefully. Sbowers3 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)