Talk:List of college football teams by weekly appearances atop AP poll

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Source?

What is the source of this information? According to the Oklahoma Sooner page http://SoonerSports.com (or more specifically this), OU and Notre Dame are currently tied with 95 weeks at the number 1 spot. This article needs a reliable source.--NMajdan•talk 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source also on the same site above, http://SoonerSports.com, that had a top 10 so I used that and deleted everything below that.

Useless article

While I think this article should be deleted as it serves little purpose, at the very least it needs to be renamed. For one, some references to this being a college football article should be in the title. This article also refers to just the AP Poll so that should be added as well, or the teams with the most time at number 1 in the Coaches Poll or BCS should be added as well. I just don't know where to find this information. Any other opinions? This article seems like it was created on a whim because somebody found this information somewhere. I mean, the original statistics had the ND at 89 weeks, which is 6 weeks off the accurate total, and when was the last time they were ranked #1? The old stats were at least several years off.--NMajdan•talk 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be deleted. This topic by itself does not seem worthy of being an independent article. There is a football section in the article about the AP Poll, and the content of this could should be included a sub-section of that football section. There are also other articles for the Coaches' Poll and other football polls, so any similar listing for those polls could be included in their respective articles as well. Mdak06 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reverted change

I reverted a change made today by Summonmaster(?). First off, the format of the table was changed for the worse. Also, he changed the number of weeks ranked #1 for all teams but didn't provide a source as to where the info came from (whereas the info before had a source).--NMajdan•talk 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge or delete this article

This article should be either merged with the AP Poll article or deleted.

If it's merged, it needs to get sources other than Wikipedia pages, because I'm reasonably sure that Wikipedia pages are not supposed to be used as sources for other Wikipedia pages. This article is primarily based on one source (the OU 2006 media guide). If there is a current media guide that has a current Top 10 list in it, that would be enough, and would make this a single-source article.

Having eight other Wikipedia pages as sources, as well as a Google spreadsheet of unknown origin that simply combines data from all of the already-listed sources, doesn't make for a good article.

In its entirety, this article consists of:
(1) a single sentence that describes the list of schools;
(2) a "last updated" note;
(3) a list of 11 schools that have been in the AP Poll; and
(4) a poor list of references.

This article is simply not worthy of being a separate article.

If someone really wants to preserve this list, then he/she should recreate it as a subsection of the College football section of the AP Poll page, and give it a proper, updated source (ideally a database that is continually updated, whether from the AP itself or someone else).

Otherwise, the article should be deleted entirely. Mdak06 (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches' poll

This article has improved as a result of having gone through AfD, insomuch as it is at least now a complete listing of #1 weekly rankings, but I think the title is misleading in that it only includes information for the AP poll. I believe it should either be moved to a title that reflects that reality or it should have a similar table added enumerating Coaches' poll rankings.

In addition, a better history of the polls could replace the lead which currently consists of a single unencyclopedic and unreferenced statement about nebulous "debates" that supposedly compare various metrics of team achievement to the topic of this list. Such a statement is unsupported, perhaps dubious, and should be removed or appropriately altered. The lead should be clearly distinguish that a compilation of number one rankings do not reflect overall or final selections, and do not in any way reflect actual recognized college football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source, NCAA or other?

The article was recently updated with the 2014 NCAA record book (pg 90) data, which has the clear distinction of "(Complete List; Does not count preseason polls)." We have observed at least one perceived error in the NCAA data, in Oklahoma's first AP #1 ranking occurring in 1954 (NCAA) vs 1950 (elsewhere).

The table was then updated with other, unsourced data, which reintroduces preseason polls into the counts. However, this edit also removed the only citation (2014 NCAA record book), which creates a WP:V issue. Possibly this change is supported by the existing College Poll Archive and Winsipedia sites shown in External links, but (to me) it is unknown if these sites rise to the standards of say College Football Data Warehouse.

So how should we proceed? I'd like to see a citation, at minimum. Inclusion of the preseason data seems preferable, but it raises as question of why the NCAA chose to deliberately omit it. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included an inline reference, the site the data is coming from is currently listed as an external link. If you look at collegepollarchive.com (http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=num1app&from=1936&to=2014#.VEH4OE10xUQ) it lists all appearances at #1. This is also a very good reference as it is always up to date and updated each week as new polls come out. It's a very robust archive of AP polling data and allows you to slice it up many different ways. Given how frequently the data changes, a dymanic site like this seems like a good source than something more static like the NCAA record book which is put out annually as a PDF (also for some reason they don't include preseason polls, and their numbers seem to have other issues as well, not sure what exactly their full criteria is for it). Simply showing all appearances seems more straightforward and easier to verify IMO. Zaqwert (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added the citation to support your changes, cheers.. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think preseasons should be included, it's the context most people want to talk about this statistic. The NCAA's approach doesn't hold that much weight for stuff like this, as there are rivers of very trivial data next to truly important statistics in the pdf. It's fair to make "most commonly accepted" judgement and include the early polls. I think collegepollarchive is more accurate, as winsipedia has at least one error (Tennessee.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.45.122.180 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the citation requests?

I can't tell if what is happening is WP:VD or not. Why on Earth the request to cite every line? There's no such request on any similar list, including such lists as AP Poll #1 vs #2's, AP Poll National Championship Winners by school, or any other list. Can you imagine adding this sort of noise on every line of those lists? Neither can I, and it doesn't make sense either. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.255.224.10 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the WP:CN, the request is off base. First, author should WP:BB - "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it." Second, page is marked WP:AD but violates guidelines for the designation- "Correct it yourself if you can", "Begin a "Disputed" section on the talk page to describe the problem" before defacing the page, and something should be noted - a dubious statement, an actual factual inaccuracy, something, not just a seagull edit. Author then states "accuracy is disputed" with nothing supporting the statement. It's WP so we can discuss anything, but jumping to defacing the page and making it difficult to read was a step too far. Please continue in talk if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.255.224.10 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last two columns aren't supported by the original global cite in the header text -which also isn't directly accessible so manipulation is already required for it to render the "Weeks" data. However, that same site support the First / Most Recent data elsewhere. I also pulled a cleaner, second cite into the lede re the weeks data. UW Dawgs (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trolling here? I think the cites you request are unneeded, because 1) the data is in a reference already, and not difficult to find (though laborious, tg for WP), 2) you did seagull edits again and it looks like crap, especially since it is unneeded, and 3) you added citations that were crap. Look at your links - the "streak page", for whatever reason (i'm sure there are good ones) doesn't list Ohio State in 2015 (or 2014), and doesn't list Oklahoma in 1950 or 2011 - and I stopped at that point. For God's sake, if you think this it is necessary for a single page link to have this info you would think you would find it yourself. Instead you inserted misleading, wrong citations. Was it intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.255.224.10 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AGF and then WP:V. Also, please sign your Talk posts with ~~~~ so bots won't have to do so for you.

As stated above, "First Appearance" and "Most Recent Appearance" were not directly supported by the article's lone, primary citation. You may have noticed another editor stated, "Although painful to get to and identify (team list -> team -> year by year at bottom) this information actually is in the cited source. This list collects that hard to discover information."[1] So clearly there was a problem. Inclusion of per-row citations is a normal practice in such tables where the content fails WP:V. You're welcome to add them if you like as it's easy, or wait for me to complete them.

Can you please provide an example of "misleading, wrong citations"? By example, the Ohio State cite fully supports all of the 105/1942/2015 data currently in the table. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think you are right - the page for Ohio State does show 2014-2015, I thought the table was chronological but it isn't. Alabama's table is missing the 1992 season though, which makes me think it isn't 100% reliable. I still don't think it is needed or was a problem, but if you want to fill it in, go ahead since I concede the links might be a valid and easier way to find the dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.255.224.10 (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, done. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]