Jump to content

Template talk:1889 Far West college football independents records

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 9 September 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In the absence of any further participation after extended time for discussion, I find that there is consensus to move titles from 1925 to 1928 as proposed, and no consensus for the remaining moves proposed. BD2412 T 03:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Per the naming scheme established at Category:NCAA Division I FBS independents football records templates, the regional college football independents records tables should use the four regions "Eastern", "Midwestern", "Southern", and "Western". Several months ago, MisterCake made some changes seen here to introduce "Far West". In discussion with Cbl62, I believe we all agreed to restore the use of four regions "Eastern", "Midwestern", "Southern", and "Western", which are used for all years between 1887 and 1955 not listed here. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 04:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 14:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reluctantly acquiesced, though it still seems like anachronism when "West" then meant "West of the Alleghenies", i. e. what we mean by Midwest. So it means the All-Western independent team will have no players from the schools labeled the Western independents, which seems unnecessarily confusing. "Far West" to distinguish from "Mid West", or "Pacific Coast", would be how you find those schools, still seen today with a name like Pac10/Pac12. So, it was in good faith. Cake (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long-winded response: I do like the consistency of using the same regional designations across time. That said, I appreciate Cake's concerns with respect to the evolution in usage of the term "West" in the late 19th century and very early 20th century. For that reason, I've acquiesced in the "Far West" designation that Cake applied to the earlier years when the Midwest was not infrequently referred to as the West. Cake has approached the issue in the spirit of compromise on other regions, so I would like to respect his position for an appropriate period of years. I suggest a reasonable cutoff point of 1906 -- which based on my rough review approximates the time period when Midwest became the clearly dominant usage. Accordingly, my tentative view is to support the proposed move for 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928, but to leave "Far West" (or preferably "Far Western" for stylistic consistency with the other templates) for years prior to 1906. Cbl62 (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Are you suggesting we use "Eastern", "Western" for the Midwest, "Southern", and "Far West" up through 1905 and then use "Eastern", "Midwestern", "Southern", and "Western" from 1906 onward? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. "Eastern", "Midwestern", "Far Western", and "Southern" up through 1905. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl, so, the only change in your proposed scheme is that "Far Western" changes to simply "Western" in 1906 and everything else stays the same? I thought part of the issue here that what we now call the Midwest was referred to as simply the "West" in those days? As I argued several months ago, I think MisterCake's concerns are red herrings. The regional scheme we are imposing here is based on modern US census designations, and it's applied simply to help managed all the content. It's irrelevant what any of the conferences or regional all-star teams were called at the time. For clarity, we are best served with a single consistent regional scheme that takes us from the proliferation of play across the US in 1880s to the introduction of tiered competition in the late 1950s. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've misread my comment. As noted above, I support your proposed move for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928. However, in deference to Cake's concerns, I'm inclined to keep "Far West" (or "Far Western") for the pre-1906 templates. I think it's a reasonable compromise. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've misread your comments. I understand that you support my proposed move for 1925 to 1928. What that leaves is a change in the scheme at 1905–1906 at which point "Far West/Far Western" becomes "Western" while "Midwestern" is used throughout the entire run. I really don't understand what this accomplishes other than unnecessary confusion and complication. Note also that 1886, 1887, 1888 are named "Western". I created those three on April 30 of this year. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The narrow point on which I've proposed a compromise is how we reference the Western United States for templates in the late 19th century and very early 20th century. Cake has noted that the term "Western" would be confusing due to the fact that, in those years, "Western" was a term that was often used to refer to the Midwest. His point has some validity. Indeed, the Big Ten was commonly known in these years as the Western Conference. Newspapers published All-Western teams that were made up of Midwestern players. Even Michigan's fight song, written in 1898, referred to the team as the "Champions of the West." Cake's proposed remedy was to disambiguate by using "Far West" for these templates. After reflecting on the matter, I think Cake's proposal is sound (at least for the early years) and actually serves to avoid confusion. (If this view is upheld, then your 1887 and 1888 "Western" templates should be changed to "Far Western" as well.) Cbl62 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense to me to just use "Far Western" for the whole run. Or simply "Western" as per my original nomination. The change in terminology at 1905—1906 seems arbitrary and ripe for confusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, since "Western" simpliciter is ambiguous, I tried to make it not so - if you got a book on the history of western football, your question should be "far west or middle west?" and it would be surprising if the answer wasn't middle. It also seemed correct for the times, just like titling an old season "Stanford Indians" rather than "Stanford Cardinal". Another option is to split more than lump, but you guys seem adverse to adding more regions. Time zones could maybe justify a 'mountain region' - as Utah and Colorado aren't pacific coast or midwest, though they could be described as pacific roughly, hence Utah is in the Pac 12. And of course, the southwest is quite different from the deep south and south atlantic, hence Texas A&M in the SEC is weird - and the same goes for the Missouri Valley (hence Mizzou in the SEC is weird), the other region making up the Big 12. Texas is usually not what people mean by "Southern football". Cake (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can understand wanting to use the four main regions found in a census or whatever for credibility's sake, but if one used a knowledge of the history of the sport instead, reflecting on regional champions and such, I think it would go something like: South Atlantic (NC, VA, WV, MD), Deep South (LA, MS, KY, TN, SC, GA, AL, FL), Southwest (AR, TX, OK, AZ, NM), East (DE, PA, NY, NJ, VT, NH, CT, MA, RI, ME), Midwest (IN, OH, IA, MI, MN, WI, IL), Missouri Valley (MO, KS, NE, ND, SD), Rocky Mountain (UT, CO, NV, WY, ID, MT), Pacific Coast (CA, OR, WA). Some hard cases - WV kind of by itself, and kind of two southwests, the west with the Border Conference and the east with the SWC. Also probably some distinctions within east and midwest of which I am ignorant. Also some things one could do for clutter like having South Atlantic and Deep South on the same template, since the Southern champ was from one or the other. Kind of things one needs to think about when it's a football history template and not a census template. This would basically reflect the prehistoric versions of respectively the ACC, SEC, Border and SWC, Ivy and Big East, Big Ten, Big 12 minus SWC, Mountain West, Pac 12. Cake (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing arbitrary about shifting "Far Western" to "Western" in 1905. I continue to strongly support the four regional divisions based on the Census Bureau breakdowns. That breakdown is clean, objective, and easily verifiable. The use of "Far Western" for years prior to 1905 is a small variation that maintains the "four region" approach but slightly tweaks the name to avoid confusion for a period of years when the narrower "Western" label could be misunderstood. Cbl62 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the understanding on the Western ambiguity, and certainly understand the four regions being less likely to run afoul of 'original research'. Though, one finds the regional championships and regional teams and so forth to be somewhat verifiable as to the regions - those regions are why the conferences exist, rather than vice versa. Cake (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I'd certainly like to see the evidence that there was a distinct change in common usage between 1905 and 1906. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have listed this at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. BD2412 T 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:1889_Far_West_college_football_independents_records&oldid=1217477542"