Talk:2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 20, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
May 2, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 4, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

United States: Ohio / Texas / University of Texas at Austin Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin (assessed as Low-importance).

College football Low‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article creation

I created this article by splitting off and expanding upon material from the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article. This was done as a result of a Wikipedia:Good Article review to better comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For GFDL purposes, authors of the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team prior to this April 13, 2007 should be included as authors of this page. Johntex\^talk 09:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem

Ref 5 is blank. Quadzilla99 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. That was probably a cut and paste from the main article. Once downside to the ref/ref format is that if the one fully spelled-out instance of the reference gets deleted (or in this case if it does not get copied over to a new article) then any short form references will no longer work. I'll work on it. Johntex\^talk 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Great Job with this article. It has plenty of citations and references for a GA and it's well written. The article is also stable and contains plenty of images, but the 5th reference is blank. Beyond that minor mistake i'm passing the article. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box score

If Texas beat Ohio St. 25-22, shouldn't one of their records be 1-1 while the others is 2-0. It seems rather peculiar that one would be more interested in the records before the game than after, seeing the how the game is already over. Pepsidrinka 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pepsidrinka, this was standard set by the Wikiproject College Football. The template is defined at Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader.

I do think it makes sense to have the records stated as they were coming into the game. We do the same thing with the rankings. It lets the viewer see how the teams were doing before they matched up. If two teams are ranked #1 and #2 coming into a game, we need to say that right up front. The loser may drop 4 or 5 places. It would not be accurate to say the meeting was between the #1 and #6 teams because that was not the case at the time.

Also, news sources tend to say things like "The 1-2 Wildcats faced the 3-0 Panthers yesterday and the Wildcats prevailed". If we stick with that format, then anyone checking the references is less likely to be confused. Johntex\^talk 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that example isn't the same. We aren't talking about how they word it, we are talking about a box score. Take a look at espn.com's box score for this game (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=262520251). They have Texas at 2-0 and Ohio St. 1-1. Similarly, if you follow baseball, whenever the AP puts out a wire reports on game, they always have the winning and losing pitchers records in parenthesis, with the record following the game, not going into the game. Only in previews, do news agencies ever put the record going into the game, because, at that point, the game hadn't been played yet. Similarly, if you look at this recap from the Mets/Marlins game on May 1, (http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/gamecenter/recap/MLB_20070501_FLA@NYM/rss), you see that the pitchers records, both within the text and in the box score, it is after the fact. Also, I'm not denying that news papers do write it like you do, though I can't recall ever seeing it written that way. Mind offering me some source? Pepsidrinka 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you note the Texas/Oh. St. box score I linked to, they do in fact put the rankings going into the game, but they put the records, after the game. So while it may not make complete sense, that is the standard that seems to be the predominant within sports coverage. Pepsidrinka 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we should get more opinions. I have posted this issue here and here. Johntex\^talk 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current format. When I think of a previous game, I think of their ranking before the game was played, or rather, the rankings that existed at kickoff. For instance, if a #5 ranked team played an unranked team and lost, I would be more interested in the fact that they were #5 going into the game as opposed to them dropping to #15 or so afterwards. Besides, we have the teams' record as they were before the game. So having the records as they were before the game and the rankings as they were after would be confusing.↔NMajdan•talk 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True it may be confusing to some, but the fact is, the consensus seems to be that way. What would be more confusing is to have one standard everywhere, and then Wikipedia have a different standard. To add to that fact, reference 29 in this article mentions number 2 Texas defeating number 4 Ohio St. and mentions that Texas is 2-0 and Ohio St. is 1-1. That was a Yahoo.com writer. Previously I linked to an espn.com article. An article at macbrown-texasfootball.com, which uses an AP wire report also uses the same format (article is @ http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=40&url_article_id=2380&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2). (Acutally, that link is to the 2006 game between the two, yet they use the same format. Both teams were 1-0 going to the game and they were ranked 1/2. The AP adopts the same format, citing the record after the game, citing the ranking before the game.) Reference 41 utilizes the same format (article found @ http://ohiostatebuckeyes.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/091105aac.html). Suffice to say, my point is, this is the industry standard. And it just seems silly, for lack of a better word, to adopt a different standard. Pepsidrinka 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with switching is that our articles often start ahead of the game, especially with bowl games. Then the same article evolves through the course of the game and beyond the finish. That is not true in the case of regular media where they tend to have one article prior to the game and then a completely different article after the game. Our template would be up before, during, and after the game. I think it would be confusing for the record to be changing inside the template. People would try to re-update a record that had been updated already. Johntex\^talk 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this could be easily avoided. The template could have a field for record prior to the game, and a field for record after the game. Where prior to the game, the two fields can have the same value, and then once the game is over with, the record after the game can be updated. That way, if the records are off by 2 games, then it is incorrect. If it the records are the same, then it is incorrect. The record prior to the game will not be used to display anything, just to hold the information so that the person updating the record knows what the record was prior to the game. Plus, just as confusing would be a scenario of a anon who isn't familar with the template, sees the article, sees that both teams are 1-0, despite the game already been played and that Texas defeated Ohio. St. Pepsidrinka 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates/fix the redirects for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]