Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Sep2008

Outside opinion requested
I would like to get outside opinions on the discussion at Talk:2008_Florida_Atlantic_Owls_football_team. Thank you! Johntex\talk 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Excessive uses of cfb link
Why is this necessary? Can we get rid of it? I noticed it because it was added after I used the template for a CFB schedule at 2008 Louisville Cardinals football team (if I was clever I'd use Template:cfb link in this sentence, but I digress). Isn't this exactly the intended use of this template? Most of the pages in this category seem to use it for schedules in this way. Oren0 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If where it is linking to is the season article, then yes, you should remove it from being used and just link directly to that article. For example, on the Lousiville page, the first game is Kentucky which has a season article so you should remove it from there and just link directly to that page like the template would. You can replace all cases like this anywhere. It would be nice if we could have it somehow tell us what pages it is linking to the season article so we could go replace it. I'm not sure that's possible though (though a bot/script might be possible). However, the other few I looked at do not link to the season article (the preferred destination), so you should not replace them. That way, if eventually there ever is a season article created it will link there (and then we can change it). MECU ≈ talk 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we use it this way? When I created this page, I had to go through each opponent with a season page and change the link on the schedule to now link to the new page.  But when I got to 2008 Pittsburgh Panthers football team, I didn't have to change anything because the link updated automatically.  If every schedule page used the template in this way, these updates would never be necessary when a new season page is created.  Why shouldn't every link at 2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season use this template?  Maybe I don't understand what this template was designed for, but this seems exactly like the perfect use. It's not as if changing the links from the template to the season link saves us much.  The work that is required each time a new season page is created is entirely unnecessary and could be avoided if we used this template everywhere. Oren0 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the template is designed to link to the most specific article that exists for a given team. If it is already linking to the yearly team page, which is as specific as it gets, then the cfb link is serving no purpose. If it is linking to the team's generic football page or to the university's page, then the cfb link would then automatically pick up a new page if it were created. You have to be aware that each article is allowed only so many template substitutions, so the more unnecessary uses of the template there are, the more it slows down the page load time and the more taxing it is on the Wikipedia servers.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I get that, but when making a team's schedule it's really annoying to have to check for which link to make for each opponent, then to add the new season link to each opponent. Are we really concerned about the added server strain or load times that 12 added templates add?  And a limit to the number of template inclusions that can be on a page is news to be but I have a hard time believing that 12 is anywhere near that number anyway.  At the very least, all of the redlinks at 2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season should be replaced with the template. Oren0 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 12 isn't near the limit, and they increased the memory size (or something like that) which was the real problem we encountered before. But think of all the other templates on a page (and the templates on those templates). Navigation bars, info boxes, etc. It all adds up. You can see the stats on a page by looking at the source HTML. We got in "trouble" for this. I know it sucks having to include the template and then check to see if it's being used and swap it out. No one ever said being a Wikipedia editor would be easy. You may want to go propose a bot or script to take care of all that. Would save the hassle, and it would only need to run once a month or once every 3 or 6 months even. But it is a real problem and the load is real. MECU ≈ talk 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of A.C. Ransom
An article that you have been involved in editing, A.C. Ransom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/A.C. Ransom. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Prepping for FAC
Hey all -- I'm currently preparing 2005 Sugar Bowl to undergo the FAC process, and if you have a moment to look it over and leave a few comments before I add it, I'd be extremely grateful. Sweat now saves blood later. I should also mention that Bobak's FAC, 2007 USC Trojans football team is still ongoing and could use your help as well. I'd like to get as many comments as possible before Saturday, since I'm sure we'll all be kinda busy after then. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've submitted the FAC (Featured article candidates/2005 Sugar Bowl), and any additional comments/supports/opposes would be appreciated. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats on FA promotion! --Bobak (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You too! JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for College football
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion spamming
Project team: Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately. There are currently 48 articles going through the AfD process. Of course, each and every one may make their own comments and contributions as they see fit. However, awareness of this issue is important as most editors are currently busy with current events of the 2008 season that is now under way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted an essay at WikiProject College football/Please Refrain from Spamming History AfDs during the season hoping to have the historical discussions tabled to the off-season.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI They're up to 58 now...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Paulmcdonald, I wish I had the energy to go and defend all of the articles that have been nominated, but right now I am so frustrated with the Wikipedia experience that I have considerably cut back on editing, and have serious considered just giving it up altogether. All the AFD's make the whole effort seem worthless.  I'm tired of wasting time defending articles when I could be adding articles.  I don't understand why some of the people on Wikipedia are so anal retentive about getting articles deleted, especially when they have little to no understanding of the subject manner.  The recent rush of CFB AFD's by User:Kittybrewster should probably be brought to the attention of someone higher up in the Wikipedia hierarchy, but whatever.  Paulmcdonald, you've done an amazing job in your time in this community and I find the articles you create of much interest.  I hope that, unlike me, you find the energy to keep up the good fight! Seancp (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can say is thanks. I hope I have the energy myself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really unfortunate to see all your hard work being torn apart, Paul. I'm appalled at the actions of the few who've nominated so many articles it's almost hopeless to mount a defense. Their actions go completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's a shameful display and I'm sorry to see your articles continuously have to suffer through this. Much like Seancp, I've cut my editing and time back substantially. I don't know where to begin in helping save your AFDs, but you have my full support in the matter. Keep up the good fight man. --Geologik (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to do the same. We just had a new baby in the household, so I'm sitting here having to choose how I spend my time... with my new son or with wikipedia?  Guess who loses...--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that's "what" loses. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update I've put a notice on the AfD pages asking any closing editor to move any closed pages to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename and place a notice at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so that we can continue efforts. Two editors have teamed up to specifically target coach articles, which can be found at User talk:Kittybrewster.  It's difficult to keep up with the AfDs and I fear that I may miss notifications.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is that they are trying to use this to delete every college coach stub. The funny thing is that the article that started this whole thing, Walter J. West was notable per WP:ATHLETE since he was the leading rusher for the Cleveland Rams in 1944.  Sorry, I did not find this out until he was deleted. 09er (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll put it into the user page at User:Paulmcdonald/Walter J. West unless you beat me to it. I'll be re-building the deletions we don't save right away over time to re-present with more information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To Seancp: The deletion discussions have come to the notice of various administrators, including myself. No action will be taken against Kittybrewster or any other editor for nominating articles for deletion with a valid reason. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not asking for action to be taken against any editor that makes a good faith nomination for AfD, and I don't think that Seancp was asking for that either--simply that we be allowed to work on this massive block with more time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked Kittybrewster to hold off nominating any more CFB articles for deletion until the current block has been closed. I don't think it's useful to have that many discussions on at once.
 * However (didn't you know there was one of those coming?), there are two major matters arising from this issue.
 * I don't think admins will accede to the request to userfy 50+ pages. Userfication is generally used in the following circumstances:
 * Where a user has spent a great deal of time working on a topic, so that they can retain their work for use elsewhere
 * Where the subject of an article may well meet notability standards, but the current version of the article is so bad that having no article would be better — in this case, the user has the chance to improve the article
 * The situation with these articles is different.
 * The articles were, from what I can see, created mostly automatically or with very little original content and work input (apologies and please correct me if I am wrong)
 * The issue that the community at the AFDs is generally coming back with is that large classes of people are not notable enough to be included; or, in the alternative, that the notability criteria of this WikiProject are considered too low and too easy to meet.
 * There are a heck of a lot of pages in Category:WikiProject College football articles that are going to be deletion targets in the future for similar reasons, mostly derived from WP:IINFO. You may save yourselves a lot of time by soliciting outside-project opinions on your notability criteria. You may also need to consider whether CFDW is a reliable source within Wikipedia's definition.
 * Just some things to think about — I realise you folks are busy, but you've got dozens of members and hopefully they'll be able to put some time into this and improve things. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Just read WP:IINFO and I'm confused... all the articles meet the standard of that policy. Specifically, the "statistics" section (the only one that would apply), the articles are not "Long and sprawling lists of statistics" -- the articles "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" and the articles are "using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." ... what gives?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking articles about certain seasons of a football team. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We appreciate that. I am sure that our common goal is to make wikipedia better.  As for the amount of time put in, my goodness!  probably hundreds of hours of time.  I request that any page on the "hit list" have a notability tag placed on it so that editors can work ahead of the wave rather than behind it.  And as for the notability guidelines, we've been asking for input for some time now and have had no input that I can find from outside the project.  Can you suggest a method that might yield better results and input from outside the project?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My "weekend" begins tomorrow, and I'll be going to the local university library to try to dig up some sources for these articles. If anyone else has access to a university library or the NewsBank database, I'd suggest trying those to dig up some offline sources that would be useful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2002 Mountain West Football Season
Hello,

User:Stifle is attempting to set the precedent that college football conference season articles should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Your comments would be appreciated at Articles for deletion/2002 Mountain West Football Season.

Thank you. SashaNein (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No precedent-setting in progress; WP:CANVASSing is though... Stifle (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not canvassing. Please read the policies that you quote to know that a post to encourage further discussion is allowed. As far as I know, the post to this WikiProject has brought about KEEP votes AND DELETE votes. The AFD had little discussion, so I asked the proper WikiProjects if they had an opinion. They do not have proper deletion sorting, unlike WP:BASEBALL and WP:VG. I don't expect every regular user to understand this site's policies, but I damn well expect every administrator to know what they're doing. SashaNein (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking a break
I've grown weary of being harassed, ridiculed, and personally attacked by a few editors outside of this project and have become over-stressed with all the AfDs I'm expected to respond to (including 18 more that I just discovered this morning). I'll be taking a break for a while, not sure how long. I do plan to return--maybe a few days, maybe a few weeks, maybe longer. Please will everyone continue to "watch the store" around here for a while?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please come back soon! Hopefully once you've had a bit of a break, you can come back with guns blazing. I know it can be frustrating at times, but you can't let them get the best of you. Remember, when they've got you outgunned on the defensive line, you can always try an end-around. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm ready to return in a limited capacity--basically editing existing articles. I still want to avoid AfDs for a while, though.  I'll be working almost exclusively on content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Colt McCoy under GA review
Hello there, the article Colt McCoy, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)