Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2015

Consensus and the College Football Playoff

How should we handle the consensus bolding we usually do post-championship game? We really have no idea how the NCAA record book will talk about this year's championship. Will they continue to list only AP, Coaches, FWAA/NFF as the consensus picks or will they also include the CFP? Maybe we should just avoid bolding until the 2015 record book comes out and instead just put a footnote? Dolenath (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just put a footnote in the meantime Dolenath (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

FWAA & Grantland Rice trophy

I've just had an email from the director of the FWAA stating that the Grantland Rice trophy was retired after the 2013 season. They teamed up with the NFF to do the Grantland Rice Super 16 poll during the regular season, but are not selecting a final national champion. I've asked if he could make a press release to this effect so we can cite it here. In the meantime, however, this causes some issues with our page. First off, we talk about the GR Super 16 poll as if it were a championship selector, but apparently it is not. However, the NFF still does award their MacArthur Bowl trophy, so some sort of consensus has to be gathered. It's unclear whether just NFF voters determine the MacArthur Bowl recipient, or if all Grantland Rice Super 16 poll voters do.

I propose that after a press-release is made available, we (1) remove Grantland Rice from the "National Championship Trophies" section of the infobox, (2) remove Grantland Rice Super 16 poll from the "Major selectors", (3) change NFF's dates to be through "present", and (4) change the 2014 selection from "FWAA/NFF" to just "NFF". Dolenath (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I will review this article, and provide my Good Article review comments over the next several days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review checklist

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

GA review comments

1. Footnote links: Please double-check that all footnote links are currently working, and update retrieval dates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

2. Footnote stylistic consistency: Please conform all footnotes to a single, consistent style, including a single format for publication and retrieval dates. It is not required to use Wikipedia cite templates, but all footnotes of a particular type (e.g., newspapers, magazines, hard-copy publications, websites, etc.) should follow a consistent format. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

3. All factual statements in the "History" section should be sourced to reliable sources presented as in-line footnotes. Currently, most of the text is unsourced and unverified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[more comments to follow]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I've fixed #2, at least as far as dates are concerned. I'm working on #1, but it will take some time to go through all those links. I'll also find some sources for #3. Dolenath (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dolenath: Where are we with this? Can you provide an update? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally finished #1. So now all that's left is #3. I'll work on that tonight. You might check #2 to make sure I got them all.Dolenath (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Good -- thanks for the update. We're getting all of the repetitive drudge work out of the way. Do you have any help -- do you want some? If I weren't the reviewer, I would jump in, but speaking as a long-time WP:CFB member, someone might object to the reviewer doing the rewrite and say that I'm a little too close to the subject. If you want or need help with the sources and footnoting, ask at the WP:CFB talk page. Then we can focus on the text and other details outlined above. Time for your reviewer to get serious. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some other active editors on the page, but I think they mainly work during the football season. I've started updating the History section. Dolenath (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the History section now and let me know what you think, @Dirtlawyer1:. Dolenath (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I'll start critiquing the text next -- that task is always easier when I understand what is supported by the footnoted sources. Also, please see if you can find two or three high-resolution free-image photos you can use to illustrate the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've thought about pictures before, but I'm not sure what I would put a picture of on this article. I guess we could put pictures of the trophies? But to me those seem more appropriate on the individual trophy pages. What do you think? Dolenath (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find some free-image photos of old-time teams and players from the 1920s and 1930s, but we should probably focus on the text first. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: OK, I've added some pictures. Take a look and see what you think.Dolenath (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1 and Dolenath: How's this review coming? Doesn't appear any progress has been made in almost a month.--Dom497 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just waiting on @Dirtlawyer1: to tell us what else needs to be done. Dolenath (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Do you intend to continue this review? I couldn't help but notice that it's almost been three months since you last commented on it, yet you're still quite active elsewhere on Wikipedia. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Working on comments now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment

This nomination is being put back into the GAN reviewing pool. The review is now over 135 days old, the oldest by nearly two months, and the current reviewer has not posted any new review material to the review page since May 8, despite several reminders on Dirtlawyer1's talk page and here, and assertions that he would "be back on the case" that day (July 6), was "on it" (July 17), and was "working on comments now" (July 24). In fact, 1300 edits have been made on Wikipedia by the reviewer since that July 6 talk-page statement, but none of them have continued this review or another incomplete one, for Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1, now 75 days old.

It is extremely unfair for a nominator to have to wait four and a half months once the review has been opened, and it's made worse when you consider that the nomination was submitted over ten months old, the oldest extant nomination by over three months. With the GA Cup about to start its second round, it is likely to be picked up by a new reviewer in a matter of days, and finished with reasonable dispatch. As I pointed out on Dirtlawyer1's talk page earlier this week, the Good Article instructions page says, Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. This commitment has not been met here, and it's time to find a new reviewer who will meet it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1998 Sagarin Ratings

Shouldn't Ohio State's mythical Sagarin Ratings Championship in 1998 be included in the article? I see at least two instances where a champion of only SR (Sagarin Ratings)is included on the list: Florida in 1985 and Florida State in 1992. This would also necessitate updating the total National Championship spreadsheets throughout the remainder of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1121:C071:95E3:4012:D3C8:93C7 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks like the official NCAA record book says that Sagarin picked Tennessee in 1998. Assuming Sagarin hasn't gone back and made changes, then it looks like the record book is mistaken here. Do we correct it and make a footnote?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/1998/team/Dolenath (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I realized we already listed Dunkel's 2007 pick which is in the same situation, so I added Ohio State's as well. I put footnotes on both.Dolenath (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Champions ruined

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Someone has ruined the tables for the following sections, College Football Data Warehouse recognized national champions...and poll era championships, you can see Oklahoma has been tampered with along with other schools and has messed up the whole thing, can an editor go back and have the page the way it was before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.57.193 (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Tables are now fixed Dolenath (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1928 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team

I checked the archives, but couldn't find anything so I'll ask here. The article says "The 1928 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team was among the first college football teams to be named as national champion by a major selector, having been chosen by the then-new Houlgate System." This should be supported by a source, especially the part about the Houlgate-system. I've searched for something online and have been able to find stuff like this, this and this but can't find any mention of a Hougate System. I did find this webpage, but it is an "About.com" website so I'm not sure if it is considered to be a reliable source or if the author of the article would be considered an expert.

FWIW, there seems to have been another system used in 1928 called the Dickinson System which chose USC as its champion. The NCAA page cited above does clearly say "Georgia Tech" was selected by the "CFRA, HAF, NCF" as the champions of 1928 and makes nomention of USC. Does "CFRA", "HAF", "NCF" have anything to do with the Houlgate System? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question because it has no claim to notability. The article needs internal consistency. In the text above, the Dickinson system is explained in part; Knute Rockne's post-dating machinations are also mentioned because they are significant in the establishment of similar post-awardings for most of NC selections prior to AP in 1936. Dickinson is considered a major selector of historical importance; Houlgate's system has always been suspect, as noted here [1]. Regarding the accuracy of both USC and GT for 1928 - please look at the section "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" in the article for the selectors who chose those schools in that year. USC is listed there, according to "DiS" - the Dickinson System - and "SR" - Sagarin Ratings.Sensei48 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Houlgate's system is cited by the NCAA Record Book, which is why I mentioned it. I would rather have had an early Dickinson image there, but haven't had much luck finding one.Dolenath (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 19:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Will review, give me an hour or so. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. I'm not a football person but wasn't there a playoff system that lead to the championship a few years ago? Was that not sanctioned? If so, then this sentence is out of date: "Division I FBS football is the only NCAA sport for which the NCAA does not sanction a yearly championship event." Otherwise I'm wrong and it can stay.

2. "The two polls also disagreed in 1957, 1965, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1990, 1991, 1997, and 2003." I'm not sure this is entirely necessary. Maybe just "The two polls have disagreed ten times since then, most recently in 2003."

3. "The AP and Coaches' polls remain the major rankings to this day." I feel like this needs a citation.

4. "famous for its use of math" What does that mean? It may need clarifying.

5. The amount of tables in this article is concerning, particularly since some of them have their own articles. The worst offender is "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" which has over 100 entries and would probably be better suited as a stand-alone list in itself. Very serious consideration needs to be given to what tables are truly necessary and which can be stated in prose or removed all together.

• On that note, while this is not covered by the GA criteria, it may be beneficial to split the article into multiple pages: an article on the ways champions are selected (this one), and a lists of national champions (all the various lists here, including by year, and title claims and the like). That being said, I can't and won't fail the article if the article isn't split, but I'll need a very compelling reason as to why some of the tables can't be incorporated as prose.

Hello, thanks for taking up this review. On 1) The 2014-2015 season was the first season with a playoff, but it is not sanctioned/managed by the NCAA like the Division II & III championships are. A private consortium, the "College Football Playoff" runs the NCAA FBS playoffs. The NCAA still does not officially recognize a winner like it does with other divisions. I'll take a look at rewording (2)-(4) and I'll see if I can get some of the other editors to respond to (5). Dolenath (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree strongly with suggestion 5. Foremost, replacing the tables with prose essentially creates a new point of view of the content of those tables, which is why the tables were created in the first place: to present an unbiased, nearly complete compilation of the dozens of points of view on the topic over nearly 150 years of history. Truly understanding the topic requires an appreciation for the complexity and large number of differing interpretations presented in all of the tables, and eliminating editor bias of each interpretation's legitimacy means that the presentation of these tables should be on as equal footing as possible, which is best done if they remain together. Breaking the tables out and summarizing them would risk, even if unintentional, the introduction new interpretation and bias, particularly considering the well known failure of readers to clickthrough to breakout articles. Having them together in one article encourages, if not forces, the reader to consider multiple interpretations (selectors', schools', third parties', etc) allowing the ultimate determination of the value of each particular interpretation to rest with the reader. Beyond that, I would also submit that most valuable part of the article to readers is the complete and thorough presentation of existing data on the subject (found few other place, if any) and the tables are the original heart and purpose of the article. On the contrary, there should be a very compelling reason to separate them other than just "they're big tables." CrazyPaco (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The compelling reasons are WP:USEPROSE and WP:NOTSTATS. From WP:USEPROSE: "Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (and are termed "lists" or "stand alone lists") and articles that consist primarily of prose (and are termed "articles"). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose" and from WP:NOTSTATS: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. [Where exhaustive statistics are not necessary] omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."

At the end of the day, this is a review for good articles not good tables, and the fact that over half the column inches of this page are tables seems antithetical to "[consisting] primarily of prose". Further, if the "most valuable part of the article to readers is the complete and thorough presentation of existing data on the subject" as you said, then is the focus of this article prose or tables? If the tables are the most valuable part here, why are they not their own dedicated list?

I'm not saying that all tables need to go, but that I literally cannot pass this article if it's more about tables than prose (see 1b). The tables don't have to be split—the article can do tons of things to comply with WP:USEPROSE—but if it doesn't comply with WP:USEPROSE I cannot pass this. Wugapodes (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Results

On Hold for 7 days pending changes. Wugapodes (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hold extended for 3 days until 13 August 2015 as neither contributor has been active since responding. Wugapodes (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not Listed I had reservations about putting this article on hold in the first place since the last could have involved a serious rewrite. Neither the nom nor the other contributor has come back since their initial comments, and even with a second hold extension I doubt that the article will be able to be brought up to GA level within that second extension. As such, I'm going to close it as not listed, and recommend the editors address these problems, particularly WP:USEPROSE and renominate when the article is more in line with the GA criteria. Wugapodes (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, it should be noted that my fellow editors and I strongly disagree with this reviewer's notion that this article doesn't qualify as GA due to having too many tables. A prior GA reviewer had no such qualms, but wasn't able to finish the review due to other obligations. The reviewer's idea that 140-plus years of championship data would be better understood as prose is ludicrous. This article is trying to convey 4 things: 1) What does the NCAA say about FBS champions? 2) What do the schools themselves say about it? 3) What do college football researchers have to say about it? 4) What does the media have to say about it and 5) What do semi-official championship-granting organizations have to say about it? We believe the most succinct and intuitive format for the year-by-year answers to these questions is with tables. We hope future reviewers will consider this point of view. Dolenath (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, I articulated my position 486 days ago, backed up by policy and the GA criteria as to why this series of tables is not a good article. You then proceed to ignore those arguments for over a year, come here and then fail to address any of them while chastising me and misrepresenting my points because some previous reviewer didn't follow the GA Criteria as closely as I did. Mind you, you made no attempt to even discuss with me how to interpret policy. No one did. I asked the following questions and received no response: At the end of the day, this is a review for good articles not good tables, and the fact that over half the column inches of this page are tables seems antithetical to "[consisting] primarily of prose". Further, if the "most valuable part of the article to readers is the complete and thorough presentation of existing data on the subject" as you said, then is the focus of this article prose or tables? If the tables are the most valuable part here, why are they not their own dedicated list? I'm not saying that all tables need to go, but that I literally cannot pass this article if it's more about tables than prose (see 1b). I waited 6 more days after that and still nothing and then closed it because no one responded to my concern.

None of this is to say that this is not of quality. It is. But it is fundamentally not a good article. I suggest you look into featured lists. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 07:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of non-free image File:College Football Playoff Logo.png

Non-free images need to satsfy certain specific requirements in order to be used within an article. Not only do they have to satisfy all 10 of the criteria specified in WP:NFCCP, they also not be used as specified in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. The image File:College Football Playoff Logo.png is being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification in College Football Playoff. If there was no such article, then using the image in College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#College Football Playoff championships would make sense for identification puproses. However, there is a "College Footbal Playoff" article and it is being wikilinked so the image still does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 which means it's non-free use rationale for this article is not valid.

The question that needs to be asked is "Does the image improve the reader's understanding of the information to such a degree that removing the image would be detrimental to that understanding?" The answer to this is no. There is no sourced critical discussion of the image within the article, so it's is not need for that reason; Moreover, the combination of the wikilink and text is more than sufficient for the reader to understand the concept of College Football Playoff, so the image is not needed for that reason. The image is essentially being used for "decorative" (purely identification) reasons in an section of an article which summarizes more detailed information provided in another Wikipedia article, and this is something not really allowed for non-free images. The reason the image is acceptable for use in the infobox of the stand-alone article "College Football Playoff" is because the "contextual significance" required by NFCC#8 is satisfied due to the marketing, branding, and identification information that the image conveys. Removing the image from that article would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of "College Football Playoff". The same, however, cannot be said for the image's use here. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but I guess the same could be said for the BCS logo and the AFCA trophy images in the article. Our GA reviewer says we should include more images to be GA quality, but if every possible image has to meet the standard of "Would removing the image be detrimental?", then we may have a very difficult time of it. Any suggestions on how to reconcile these two things (need of photos for GA quality and NFCC#8 standards) for this article? Dolenath (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for comments Dolenath. I didn't realize the article was being reviewed for GA. From looking at the review page, the reviewer said "Also, please see if you can find two or three high-resolution free-image photos you can use to illustrate the article."(I underlined "free-image photos" for emphasis) Free images, such as those from Commons, can pretty much be used anywhere on Wikipedia as long as it satisfies WP:IUP. There is lots of leeway given and it pretty much comes down to whether there is a consensus to use the image or not in a particular article. It is possible that the use of a free image will be questioned by another editor, but things are ideally then discussed on the talk page until something that can be worked out just like any other content dispute. Use of non-free images, however, is much more restricted by WP:NFC due to copyright concerns. If an image does not satisfy all of the requirements for non-free use, then it shouldn't be used. Sometimes there are disagreements about whether these requirements are satisfied and things can be discussed at WP:NFCR or WP:MCQ if further clarification is desired, but there's not a lot of wiggle room, especially when the image is not being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification.

File:Bcs logo 2010.png does not have the separate, specific non-free rationale it needs for use in this article per WP:NFCC#10c so it can be removed per WP:NFCCE; In such cases, it might be possible to simply add the necessary rationale to this file's description, but again the image is not needed here for the same reasons as given above. File:BCS Championship Media Day, Jan. 5, 2013.jpg is only used in this article here, so I guess you can make a case that it is needed in someway. The image, however, may actually be OK to transfer to Commons because it is licensed using a "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)" license by the owner of the sourced Flickr account. If you look at c:COM:F, you'll see that the license "Some rights reserved" seems to be OK for Commons. You can try and find out for sure by asking at c:COM:VPC. Someone there more familiar with Flickr licensing should be able to answer any questions you have. As for other free images, perhaps there's something in c:College football that might be useful. These are all free images, so there should be no licensing issues. If, by chance, you find a different non-free image that you want to use, it might be a good idea to ask about it first at WP:NFCR before uploading or using it. The editors hanging out there can help figure out if it's OK to use and how it should be licensed. FWIW, I've come across images/logos before that actually qualified as public domain, but were mistakenly uploaded as non-free, so the editors at NFCR can really be helpful in figuring things out. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually I uploaded the AFCA image to Commons initially, but it got taken down over there because although the image was CC-licensed, the trophy itself is copyrighted. They suggested I host it on WP instead as a free image of a non-free trophy.Dolenath (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. The design of the trophy is probably not simple enough to fall below the threshold of originality. Private photos taken of products (e.g., bottles and cans of something) often are removed from Commons because the product's packaging/label is considered to be copyrighted. Do you know who owns the copyright of the trophy? If they have a photo of the trophy that is liensed using a CC-license, then that might be able to be used instead. As I said, the current photo is not being used in any other articles, so it could possibly used here if it was being discussed in some way in the article. Not simply something like "Here's a picture of the trophy", but something with a little more detail like "The trophy was designed by so and so to represent such and such for such and such a reason ...." supported by a reliable source might be enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in my opinion. I am not sure, though, how such a discussion would fit in with the rest of the article. You could also ask about the image at WP:MCQ and WP:NFCR for clarification regarding its license. Commons' requirements tend to be a little stricter when it comes to "free" licensing. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Some good news - I was able to talk University of Maryland into releasing this photo under CC3.0: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Maryland_1953_Football_National_Championship_Trophy.jpg, so as soon as it's confirmed we can add it to the article. Dolenath (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)