User talk:Cbl62/Archive 2017

All Southern team of 1922

Do we count this one? Cake (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like an All-Vanderbilt team than an All-Southern team. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One way to say "1906 and 1922 were Vandy's best years" is that for some the All-Southern team was the All-Vandy team. Given the scores against Vandy, I wonder how '23 Michigan would have fared against '23 Texas. Made this all the more interesting. Cake (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even in a program's best year, the selection of an All-Southern team consisting solely of players from a single team strikes me as neither balanced nor credible. Do you disagree? As for 1923 Texas, I don't know enough to make a meaningful comparison. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially when it comes from a newspaper local to the team. Though 1899 Sewanee and 1906 Vandy have arguments to say it's OR to stop the possibility. Though, according to Fuzzy Woodruff, nobody's All-Southern teams were much credible until 1902 with Tichenor, and Heisman shortly after. Cake (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS 500 monopoly dollars and a get out of jail free card to whoever can finish the Texas Tech and William & Mary season articles. Cake (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely long-term goal – NFL 75th anniversary team good topic

At the rate I work, this would likely take years, but I'm thinking of making National Football League 75th Anniversary All-Time Team into a good topic. I've already knocked out Hutson and Van Buren, and Mean Joe is awaiting review. And you've taken care of Rosie and Night Train, both of which should be GA worthy after some polishing. I just wish there were a few more editors in WP:NFL willing to expand articles. That'd make this goal a lot more realistic. Lizard (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the current ratings for 75th anniversary players:

As I listed offense first and moved toward defense on the right, it's interesting to note the disparity in quality between offensive and defensive player pages. Roughly, the left column is skill positions; the middle column is linemen; and the right column is linebackers, defensive backs, and special teams. Of all skill positions, Raymond Berry is the only one below C class (although I'm currently working on Berry and it's probably at least up to C by now). Lizard (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A noble, lofty, and worthy goal! Cbl62 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stenerud's article has some potential. Been waiting for Cbl to do the NCAA leaders in kicking and punting to include the few old-timers. Cake (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-Conference charts on conference season articles

I supplied the height and weight and such to mimic the other charts on All-Conference articles. Was that a mistake? Maybe you could be so kind to edit one of the All-Southern charts in the way you feel is right. Cake (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are referring to. Could you provide a link? Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am contrasting how you've handled them versus how I've handled them. Cake (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few differences in the two versions:

Your version uses abbreviations for position. Mine spells out the position. I don't feel strongly about this, but believe spelling out the position may be marginally better since not all viewers will necessarily understand the abbreviations.
My version identifies which selectors chose each person as a first-team, all-conference player. I think this is important data to include. (In the 1928 Southern case, I'd probably limit the selectors to the two big ones [AP, UP].)
Your version includes columns for the height, weight, class, and hometown of each player, I am on the fence; I like to see such information in rosters on the team/season articles, but am ambivalent as to whether to include these fields on the conference/season articles. Of the four columns, I'd say "class" is the most apt in the context of such a chart, but I have no real objection to including all the data fields if they can be filled in. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also your version displays the team names in bold. I'm not sure why that is. Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, and glad you don't want to brush aside e. g. hometowns on roster entirely. Again, I was mostly mimicking how it was done before by other editors on e. g. conference season pages, though I know that's not the best excuse for why e. g. the bold team. Cake (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are they any better now? Cake (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Cbl62 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berry

Anything on why Raymond Berry's stats declined so abruptly in 1967? The snippet view of his autobiography mentions a "bad knee" but I can't see much more than that. Lizard (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pope and Michigan

Amazing how many coaches come out of Yost, especially if you consider McGugin's tree as part of his. With your interest in sportswriters, a favorite just died. Also, an editor has been working on John Henry Wise and you might know more than I do given the Michigan game. Cake (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What say you

User:Lizard the Wizard/Pre-1961 AP MVP. Looks like it'll come down to either having a ton of explanatory notes in the article or listing multiple winners for each of the years in question. Lizard (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: For these types of things, contemporaneous sources are the most reliable. Here's what I found:

1957 - Jim Brown was the AP Player of the Year. See here.

1958 - Jim Brown was the AP Player of the Year (for the second consecutive year). See here.

1959 - Johnny Unitas was the AP Player of the Year with Conerly finishing in second place. See here.

Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I ended up going with, with the exception of Van Brocklin. There were apparently no AP MVP stories in 1960. Lizard (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: For 1960, the AP awarded separate offensive and defensive player of the year awards. Van Brocklin was chosen as the most valuable offensive player, while Schmidt was named defensive most valuable player. See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that changes everything. I don't know how you dug that up. Lizard (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com, baby! Don't know what I'd do without it. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story is by the AP, but was it an AP award? Lizard (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I assumed so since the UPI separately reported on its choice of Van Brocklin as its MVP, and the only coverage on the Van Brocklin/Schmidt MVPs was from the AP. But you are correct that it is not as explicit as it could be. This example here (also here) says the announcement was made by the NFL Players Association. My "inference"/"guess" (i.e., possibly WP:OR) is that the AP had the Players Association pick its offensive and defensive MVPs for the 1960 season. If there were not an AP tie to the award, there would be at least some reportage in UPI or NEA sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and this change everything. It is a UPI story reporting o the selections of Van Brocklin and Schmidt by the Players Association. This probably squelches my hunch that there was a tie between the NFLPA selection and the AP. Cbl62 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. The NFLPA? I didn't know they ever gave out awards. Lizard (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if the AP hadn't decided to be revisionists this mess wouldn't have happened. Instead of owning up to their mistake and trying to rectify it they did their best to sweep it under the rug. Lizard (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent source?

Since Murray Olderman (side note: wow he's still alive) created the Jim Thorpe Trophy for NEA, would, say, this be considered a primary source? As in, not sufficient for establishing notability of the Jim Thorpe Trophy? (not to be confused with Jim Thorpe Award) Lizard (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TCC awards templates

See the navboxes at Touchdown Club of Columbus. I recently merged Sammy Baugh Trophy and Chic Harley Award into that article simply because an exhaustive search (even with Newspapers.com) found only passing mentions of a couple winners. So the if TCC's two most well-known awards are so lightly regarded, we can probably assume all those other awards are at least just as trivial. So I think we should nuke all fourteen (14) of those navboxes. I'm sure Jonathan M. "The Facebook Investigative Journalist" Weiss would agree. Lizard (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with the Baugh Trophy. One way to test your hypothesis is to compare the coverage between the four national quarterback awards:

Award	Inception	Newspaper.com hits	Google search hits
Sammy Baugh Trophy Sammy Baugh Award	1959	137 159	5,140 2,850
Davey O'Brien Award	1977	3,824	42,900
Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award	1987	2,912	21,000
Manning Award	2004	697	58,900

So, while the Baugh Trophy is the oldest of the bunch, it does (to my surprise, actually) appear to be the most lightly covered. Accordingly, I would not be opposed to eliminating the navbox. A similar action might also be appropriate for the Unitas Award.Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised as well. It appears the TCC never received nearly as much coverage as other awards organizations like the Maxwell Club and even the DC Touchdown Club. But regarding navboxes, we've definitely been letting some questionable ones creep up for a while now. Lizard (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's try the same analysis with the Harley and other national player of the year awards:

Award	Inception	Newspaper.com hits	Google search hits
Heisman Trophy	1935	495,315	422,000
Maxwell Award Maxwell Trophy	1937	11,854 6,037	113,000 6,790
Chic Harley Award Chic Harley Trophy	1955	14 101	3,270 99
Walter Camp Award Walter Camp Player of the Year	1967	2,067 1,743	26,900 19,500
Archie Griffin Award	1999	44	4,930

Once again, the data shows that the Harley and Griffin Awards are far, far less significant than the others. Accordingly, I would not be opposed to eliminating the templates for both of them. Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage that low would normally cause me to wonder if the award even exists at all. Especially with the rabbits you've pulled out of your hat in the past when it comes to finding sources. Lizard (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall conclusion: In light of the coverage, it seems pretty clear that the Harley, and Griffin awards are not absolutely "career defining" awards. I'd probably say the same about the Baugh Trophy (though it was the only national QB award in the pre-O'Brien years) and the Unitas Golden Arm Award as well. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yost coaching tree

At some point we have to cite each one like on Pop Warner's page. Cake (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for your efforts along these lines. Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. One could probably expand the Michigan section a bit using what you've already done on the "Yost era" article. Cake (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Yost article needs work. It's on my "one of these days" list. Cbl62 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So he diagrammed plays with groceries for Blinkey Horn and scenes from the Civil War with salt and pepper shakers for students. Not sure where to put that in the article. Cake (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to set a standard for single games

What makes a single-game article worthy for inclusion has been debated for centuries here, and it will likely continue. Is GNG such an end-all guideline that nothing else can be taken into account once it's proven to be met? At some point common sense has to trump guidelines. Lizard (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For me it's not as much an issue of notability as it is a question of whether the college football project has jurisdiction and authority to cover individual games in the context of team/season articles. That is my preference, except for extraordinary games, and I offered my two cents to that effect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (2nd nomination). Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Green's silly college stats

Check out the college stats table on Hugh Green (American football). Do you think that's accurate? Seeing the accolades he received, it would make sense, but those are some ridiculous numbers. 53 sacks? 24 forced fumbles? Lizard (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Green is arguably one of the top defensive players in college football history. His official (here) Pitt bio says he had 49 sacks. I'm not finding a reliable source for his career stat on forced fumbles. With 48 games played, 24 forced fumbles would be a ratio of a forced fumble every other game -- impressive but not so crazy as to be unbelievable. Cbl62 (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College football schedule score format

I'm currently in the process of reverting all of your college football edits that you made to "fix" the score format. The format it was in before you changed it is the format that has always been used for every season article for every sport, whether it be football, basketball, hockey, etc. It's a bit ridiculous to just change a few dozen articles' formats when there's literally thousands of articles with the original format.

You cited a consensus decision on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Score format to support your edits. First of all, that discussion was for NFL articles only, not college football. Second of all, there was not a consensus on changing the score format in tables, only in prose.

If you would like to have the scores in the schedule tables in your format, you can start up a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and begin changing the thousands and thousands of articles. But until then, please don't create so much inconsistency. Kobra98 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC) @Kobra98: Your mass reversion is contrary to the overwhelming consensus reached by participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 14#Score format which was linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 18#Score format and resulted in input from multiple members of the college football project. If you had bothered to actually read the discussion, it would have been apparent to you that the consensus and discussion did explicitly apply both to (a) college football articles, and (b) schedule tables. Moreover, your suggestion that your preferred format "has always been used for every season for every sport" is simply wrong. Cbl62 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kobra98:, please cease your disruptive editing. A consensus was reached. If you have a problem take it up in a discussion first. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are both wrong and both need to go back to that discussion and actually read what everyone else said, not just the comments you wrote. The consensus in that discussion was not explicitly agreeing to change the format in schedule tables; there was a consensus to do it in prose.

DragonFury says he's fine with the proposal "aside from the impact on season articles." In season articles, he "prefer[s] the 'relevant team first' format that is used," i.e. the opposite of the format that you're supporting.

PeeJay says "in season articles, I don't think any changes would be made to the schedule tables."

Cbl62, X96lee15 and CrashUnderride are the only ones to explicitly say you support changing the format in NCAA schedule tables, but not a single other person says this. In fact, there's really only two comments where people are in support of changing the format in NCAA schedule tables. That is absolutely not a consensus, much less an "overwhelming" one.

"Moreover, your suggestion that your preferred format 'has always been used for every season for every sport' is simply wrong." Mind linking me proof? As far as I can see, there are tens of thousands of seasons articles across every division, every league and every sport that have schedule tables with the "relevant team's score first" format. It's simply an overwhelming majority. You cannot go in and change just a few dozen just because you and two others want to. Oklahoma Sooners football alone has schedule tables every season dating back to 1895, and as far as I know, every single one of them has the format I'm in favor of. That's just one program, in one division, in one sport. Are you going to go back and change every single one of these?

Once again, a consensus on changing the format on NCAA schedule tables was absolutely NOT reached. Only three people were explicitly in support of this. You both need to go back and read all of the comments. Kobra98 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kobra98: as I stated in the in archived discussion, it's not common place in American sports for the scored to be listed as lossing score-winning score. The format is winning score-losing score and for tables, visitor on top, home team on bottom. For examples, look at the score boxes that are displayed on CBS, Fox, ABC, NBC, ESPN, NFL Network, etc. when they are formatted that way. When they are formatted side-by-side the home team is on the right and visitors on the left. As is standard with American sports. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 06:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kobra98: @Crash Underride: Prior to the recent discussion, the schedule tables went both ways. (It was NOT all one way, as Kobra claims.) The recent discussion was an attempt to bring uniformity to the process. A consensus was reached, and I made a first step by conforming all 2016 Division I FBS season articles to that consensus. Kobra has now reverted more than 80 of those edits. In furtherance of Crash Underride's point, I note that ESPN follows the format advocated by the recent consensus (see here). So do most college football programs in their official results tables. See, e.g., (Oklahoma, Michigan, USC [click on 2016 season). Cbl62 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: You did not address any of my points. I understand that you think it should be done this way, but that doesn't mean you can just go and do it without actually reaching a consensus. It may not be commonplace on other sites to have the format like this, but this is definitely how it's always been on Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, in addition to pretty much any other sport on Wikipedia that uses similar schedule tables. For example, look at any college football season article from any season, or an NBA season article from any season, or NFL, or MLB.

@Cbl62: This conversation will go nowhere if you continue to refuse to back up your claims. "Prior to the recent discussion, the schedule tables went both ways. (It was NOT all one way, as Kobra claims.)" This is not true, and you have still not show me any evidence that it might be. I will not claim that 100% of them were one way, but the vast majority have been. I have personally never seen one with the format you support on any article until these past few months after you a few others decided to start changing them. If you still choose to not believe me, just look at the template used to make schedule tables on WikiProject College football. The template on the actual WikiProject College football page has the format "relevant team's score first". If this isn't enough to convince you, I don't know what is.

Again, I understand that both of you want to make the format consistent with other websites, but you must accept the fact that not only has it never been even close to consistently done this way on Wikipedia for any sport, you have also not reached a consensus in any discussion to change this. Kobra98 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kobra98: We can't "just go and do it without actually reaching a consensus"? Did you actually look at the discussion? A consensus was reached. We discussed how it is typically done for (North) American sports and European sports. We weren't going to touch European sports because there is a wide variety. However, I urge you to go to [www.espn.com ESPN.com], [www.nfl.com NFL.com], [www.mlb.com MLB.com], [www.nba.com NBA.com], etc. and see how they format the scores, in prose and table format. I'm certain you'll see that it is "winning-losing" in prose and for tables away on the left or top and home on the right or bottom. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: I've said it many times but I will say it again. No, a consensus on the score format in schedule tables was NOT reached. Your original post was referring to what you had seen on "some player articles". You did not specify season articles and/or schedule tables. The format used in season articles and/or schedule tables was only mentioned by about four people; two were in favor of leaving the format as is, two were in favor of changing the format. That is absolutely not a consensus. In fact, one of the few times it was mentioned was when PeeJay was talking to you, and you didn't even disagree with him! He specifically said "In results tables on team season articles, we always put that team's score first. The change proposed by this thread should only affect scorelines mentioned in prose, not tables." Then you replied "Exactly. The tables would remain the same." So how can you possibly say that a consensus was reached? Kobra98 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kobra98: after reading that, I remember it now. I was confused when I said that the tables wouldn't be changed, for some reason I assumed that people would do the sensible thing and follow convention with away - home / away (top) - home (bottom) format, seeing as that's done in 99.999% of places for (North) American sources. I'm sorry that I actually put too much faith into people. My bad, won't happen again. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten Conference naming history

Cbl62, I know you've been busy working on the Big Ten Conference football season articles. I want to clear up some details about the naming history and conventions we want to use for the Big Ten. Template:Big Ten Conference football navbox refers to the conference as "Western Conference" from 1896 to 1916, "Big Ten Conference" from 1917 to 1946, "Big Nine Conference" from 1947 to 1950, and Big Ten again from 1951 to present. The category naming scheme at Category:Big Ten Conference football seasons doesn't match the article naming scheme. Also many of the early Chicago Maroons football season articles, e.g. 1916 Chicago Maroons football team, refer to the conference as "Western College Athletic Conference". There is a redirect from that to Big Ten Conference, but the article makes no mention of "Western College Athletic Conference". Let me know your thoughts on this. We should get things synced up. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Up until 1917, my research indicates that the common usage was "Western Conference" and should therefore be the way the articles are named. Prior to 1917, the conference had never even had 10 members. From 1917 until Chicago's full departure, and then again once Michigan State joined as a full member, "Big Ten" was the most commonly used name. The years that are most troublesome is the interim between Chicago's departure and Michigan State's arrival. In creating the conference season articles, I searched news coverage to determine what was most commonly used from year to year. Give me a few days to take another look, and let's then try to confirm what we think is best. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. For now, can we agree that "Western Conference" should be used in all cases from 1896 to 1916 and that "Western College Athletic Conference" should not be used at all? We can revisit those early post-WWII years later once we get more research. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a chart showing the "hit" comparison in newspapers.com. The ambiguous/transition years are 1946 and 1949

Year	"Big Ten Conference"	"Big 10 Conference"	"Big Nine Conference"	"Big 9 Conference"	Conclusion
1945	1,163	76	49	0	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1946	948	57	907	17	Transition year
1947	140	6	1,256	12	Clear - Big Nine/9"
1948	209	16	1,497	16	Clear - "Big Nine/9"
1949	731	146	612	2	Transition year
1950	1,285	210	106	1	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1951	1,722	225	106	1	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1952	2,057	451	77	2	Clear - "Big Ten/10"

Perhaps we go with Big Nine for 1946–47 through 1949–50 academic years, since the Big Ten actually had nine teams in those years? So the 1946 through 1949 football seasons? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought to do the searches by academic year. Doing it that way, and treating an academic year as September 1 to August 31, the revised results give a much clearer picture:

Year	"Big Ten Conference"	"Big 10 Conference"	"Big Nine Conference"	"Big 9 Conference"	Conclusion
1942-43	1,630	80	19	2	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1943-44	1,143	60	11	1	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1944-45	1,106	57	57	2	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1945-46	1,510	91	46	0	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1946-47	152	10	1,413	25	Clear - Big Nine/9"
1947-48	158	8	1,416	12	Clear - "Big Nine/9"
1948-49	324	31	1,323	9	Leans - "Big Nine/9"
1949-50	1,144	268	134	2	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1950-51	1,743	203	105	1	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1951-52	1,450	244	107	1	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1952-53	2,459	492	79	1	Clear - "Big Ten/10"

For the 1949 season, if you focus just on football season, the count is 518 to 85 in favor of "Big Ten Conference". Cbl62 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure we get this right, here are the results of a slightly different search, eliminating "conference" from the search paramaters and limiting the search to the months when football receives substantial coverage (September-December).

Year	"Big Ten Conference"	"Big 10 Conference"	"Big Nine Conference"	"Big 9 Conference"	Conclusion
1943	5,685	611	165	96	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1944	7,187	674	439	136	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1945	8,268	1,159	240	111	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1946	1,756	344	10,129	1,091	Leans - "Big Nine/9"
1947	941	458	10,788	883	Clear - Big Nine/9"
1948	1,604	1,187	11,727	1,409	Leans - "Big Nine/9"
1949	11,868	4,187	1,289	489	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1950	13,363	3,007	288	707	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1951	12,584	3,523	251	802	Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1952	17,927	4,807	159	694	Clear - "Big Ten/10"

Note: In the early 1950s, there was a Westinghouse refrigerator called the "Big 9" which is the cause for most of those hits from 1950-1952.Cbl62 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The next "sticky point" in the discussion is when the term "Big Ten" supplanted "Western Conference" as the common name. This chart seeks to analyze that wrinkle with focus on the months from September to December:

Year	"Western Conference"	"Big 10 Conference"	"Big Ten Conference"	"Big Ten"	Conclusion
1917	1,255	183	2	1,447	Pretty even
1918	692	94	3	c. 1,000	Pretty even
1919	1,406	187	2	1,376	Pretty even
1920	2,290	317	5	2,235	Pretty even
1921	2,865	3	305	2,813	Pretty even
1922	3,786	7	453	3,737	Pretty even
1923	2,861	5	369	3,628	Pretty even
1924	3,911	5	467	4,274	Pretty even
1925	4,306	10	484	5,488	Pretty even

These results show pretty even usage of "Big Ten" vs. "Western Conference" from 1917 through 1925 (and likely thereafter for several years as well). My suggestion in light of this is that we simply stick with the "Big Ten" usage that is already in place but include reference to "Western Conference" as well in the body of the conference articles and probably create redirects as well. Cbl62 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall conclusion: Keep "Western Conference" naming from 1896-1916, use "Big Ten Conference" from 1917-1945 and 1949-present, and use "Big Nine Conference from 1946-1948. Thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why usage of "Big Ten" became favorable again in 1949 if Michigan State didn't join the conference until 1950. Can see you what the numbers look like just from September to December 1949? I've cleaned up all the relevant team and coach articles for the pre-1917 era to reflect "Western Conference". I have a move discussion opened for the 1907 to 1916 season categories here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you already answered my question about the 1949 football season above. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's wrong?

I'll copy-paste the email I just sent to PFR:

The page which lists AP Comeback Players of the Year ([1]) appears to list Pro Football Weekly's winners, not the AP's. From what I've found through newspaper research, the AP gave a comeback POY award from 1963 to 1966 and then not again until 1998. The NFL Record and Fact Book begins listing AP winners in 1998 ([2] pg. 527). The Football Almanac's list of PFW's winners ([3]) is identical to PFR's list of AP winners, even listing multiple winners for the same years and omitting a winner in 1985. Lizard (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: you're wrong. You're always wrong.</sarcasm> ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow. What is the dispute? Cbl62 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PFR's list labels the winners on their site as "AP Comeback Player of the Year Winners" when in fact the list appears to be of the PFWA's comeback winners. The AP awarded a Comeback POY from 1963–1966 and 1998–present. Lizard (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If AP wasn't picking winners from 1967-1997, then who was? PFR didn't even exist then. Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PFWA was, supposedly. (You may be reading PFR and PFWA as the same thing). What's peculiar though is that all sources list both the AP and PFWA awarding 2 winners in 2005 and Chad Pennington winning twice, in 2006 and 2008. It seems highly unlikely that both selectors would choose to be unconventional in the exact same years. Lizard (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a little bit of time to see what I can dig up. Cbl62 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the AP award right now and it all looks to be correct (per the NFL record and fact book). It's the PFWA's winners that I'm unsure of. Lizard (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Happy to check anything if you want. Cbl62 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished: Associated Press NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award. I wonder if there's a reason it took the AP so long to pick the award back up. Or why they stopped awarding it in the first place. I couldn't find anything. Lizard (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawthorne: GNG?

Do you think Jim Hawthorne, LSU play-by-play radio guy from 1983–2016, passes GNG? I can find a ton of local stories but not many national headlines. Most of the national news concerns his going missing during the flooding in Baton Rouge last year. Lizard (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a clear GNG pass to me. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do. I've heard many an LSU fan say they'd mute the TV broadcasters and turn on the radio to listen to Hawthorne call games. His most famous calls were the only walk-off home run in College World Series history and the Bluegrass Miracle . Lizard (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan fans used to do that (mute the TV) and listen to Bob Ufer as well. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early forgotten(?) AP awards

I've noticed that every list for AP NFL Comeback Player of the Year begins with 1998's winner, despite contemporary newspapers announcing winners from at least 1963 to 1966 clearly identified as being chosen by the AP (see that Wikipedia article). Similarly, newspaper accounts show the AP giving an overall Rookie of the Year award as early as 1959, but these are also not on any list. How do I go about this without committing original research? Lizard (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: Don't have good answer off top of my head. I'll take a closer look in the next couple days. Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Record and Fact Book retroactively considers the overall rookies of the year as offensive rookies of the year, since it was always won by an offensive player I guess. Still not sure what to do with the early comeback players of the year, and it doesn't help that PFR still lists the wrong selector's winners on their site. Lizard (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at how you handled the early picks at AP NFL Comeback Player of the Year. You've included sourcing for your picks, and it looks good. Strange that there was a 30-year gap in this award. If additional years can be solidly sourced, I would see no reason not to add them. Will take a look at ROY later. Cbl62 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albion football coaching history

Cbl62, I think there are some errors in Albion's coaching history, as listed on their own site. They have "Gill" as coach for 1912, "Carpell" for 1913, and "Kennedy" for 1914. Gill appears to be Thomas Andrew Gill; I've done a bunch of work to expand that article in the past day. Carpell is Otto Carpell and Kennedy is Walter S. Kennedy. Gill appears to have been coaching at Lombard College in 1912 and then came to Albion in 1913. The NCAA database lists "Andrew Gill" as Albion's basketball coach in 1913–14. Carpell appears to be have been coaching at Olivet College in 1913 and then Albion in 1914 per https://www.newspapers.com/clip/10607603/lansing_state_journal/ and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/10607622/lansing_state_journal/. Maybe Kennedy was actually Albion's football coach in 1912 and not in 1914? I thought maybe you could see what you could did up to clarify all of this? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse links

Why don't we just TFD the template instead of removing those links one by one? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the template for deletion here. No need to go manually article by article and delete the instances of it. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I supported the deletion. If the template is deleted, won't we still need to go through each article to remove the template? Cbl62 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bot (User:SporkBot, I believe) will sweep through and delete all instances. See the second-to-last edit at Mel Tjeerdsma. Although I wonder what happens in cases where the the CFBCR link is the only external link. Does the section heading get deleted too? We would want that rather than an empty external links section. I'm not sure what happens in that case. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com search queries

If you were looking for, say, a list of UPI's football All-Americans for the 1991 season, what would you type into the search bar on Newspapers.com? You must know a secret method I'm not aware of. Lizard (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you having access to premium is probably the secret. Free access through Wikipedia is severely limited when it comes to the obscure stuff. Lizard (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all trial and error. A lot of ways to go about it. In this case, we know the UPI picks from 1991 College Football All-America Team; I picked three with unusual names (darby jurkovic detmer), added UPI as further search term, and limited the search to Dec 1991. Doing that, I found this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Unanimous AA draft

I've been working on a list of all-time unanimous college football All-Americans here. I had actually started it around a year ago but dropped it when I noticed discrepancies between the lists on Sports Reference, the list in the NCAA record book, and contemporary sources (shocking). I decided to go strictly with the players we have listed as unanimous selections on the respective All-America Team Wikipedia pages. Lizard (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancies are really frustrating. I wonder if contacting the people who compile those All-Americans for the NCAA would do any good. They've probably just been copy-pasting for the past 30 or so years and never even paid mind to how accurate they are. A few can be attributed to errors on our part, but many of them are inexplicable, such as not listing Cannon in 1959 or Mike Vaughan in 1976 as unanimous. As far as those years go, "unanimous" has always meant merely being selected to the first team by every official selector, right? Lizard (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding as well. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally finished the list: List of unanimous college football All-Americans. I'll need to individually source the ones that aren't in the NCAA record book. What I took away from this was that Oklahoma has either had a lot of good running backs, or sportswriters have a love affair with Oklahoma running backs. Lizard (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the NCAA only counts selections of a player at a single position? Rather than every selection at any position. For example, Shane Conlan was on all 5 teams but isn't listed as unanimous by the NCAA. He was a defensive end on the AFCA team and a linebacker on the other 4 teams.[4][5][6][7]. That still wouldn't explain Brian Bosworth for that same season though, who was picked as a linebacker by all 5 selectors and isn't listed as unanimous. Lizard (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, but doesn't seem to make much sense. If someone was chosen as a first-team AA by every official selector, it's hard to argue persuasively that the person is not a unanimous selection. Cbl62 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mack Supronowicz.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mack Supronowicz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Quentin Sickels (1948).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Quentin Sickels (1948).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On this day, 10 years ago...

Hey, Cbl62. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mystery of 1960 AP awards

I've known for a while thanks to Pro Football Journal and my own searching that there are no newspaper accounts to be found for the AP's NFL MVP in 1960. But it also appears that this applies to every AP NFL award for 1960. See Associated Press NFL Rookie of the Year Award and Associated Press NFL Coach of the Year Award; I'm able to find a newspaper account for every single year except 1960. Very odd. Lizard (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come and join us at the Wiknic

LA Meetup: 6th Wiknic, 7/15 @ Pan Pacific Park

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to the 6th Los Angeles Wiknic, a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is planned for Pan-Pacific Park and will be held on Saturday, July 15, 2017 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Hoyt 1928.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charles Hoyt 1928.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor might need some help

Hi there cbl62. I am looking for another editor who might know a bit more about talking to admins and whatnot. It seems User talk:SportsEdits1 is having problems with account and is looking for help. I would appreciate if you could take a look. Cheers. Cake (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of persons have already jumped in that. Per those comments, it is alleged that SportsEdits1 is a sockpuppet and that this conclusion is supported by technical data. A number of the comments already there outline the process he needs to follow in order to have the block lifted. Not sure I can add more to the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for spelling it out for me. Cake (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1980 in Michigan

Hi, you probably already know but song titles are to be put in quotations, not italicized. Albums get italicized though. Thanks :) --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Renfrew-Wakabayashi.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Renfrew-Wakabayashi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Tubby Raymond (1950).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tubby Raymond (1950).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Liston

Cbl, I'm doing some editing on Emil Liston, which you expanded back in 2010. You had him attending and playing football at Michigan College of Mines, sourced to a 1919 NY Times articles that I cannot view. Other sources (e.g. the 1949 obit I just added) indicate the he attended and played at Baker College. Seems he coached at Michigan Mines in 1916. Can you check that 1919 NY Times source and see if you made a mistake or if the sources are in conflict? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the New York Times article currently, but here is another source for the same fact. I did find another article identifying him as the athletic director at Michigan Mines. Perhaps he was both a player, coach and administrator for Michigan Mines. As you have both seen, that was not unheard of in the early years of college football. Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. that was more common in the 1890s, but not as common by the mid 1910s. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not as common but Michigan Mines was a smaller program, so it's not so hard to believe. We do have two reputable sources (New York Times and New York Tribune) saying he played for Michigan Mines. Cbl62 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Tech website only has football results going back to 1920; see http://www.michigantechhuskies.com/sports/fball/archives/yearbyyear. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, here is the source I mentioned saying that he was the athletic director at Michigan College of Mines from 1916 to 1918. Cbl62 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I enjoyed reading your most recent article on Michigan.:Best Regards,

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Smith

Possibly because he has the most generic name in history, I'm having trouble finding anything on Jim Smith, LSU's baseball coach from 1966–1978. Lizard (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh never mind. I've got the basics. Lizard (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested for getting a Michigan basketball article to FL status

Hey Cbl62,

I got a recommendation from TonyTheTiger that I seek your help on a Michigan basketball-related article. I am attempting to get to List of Michigan Wolverines men's basketball head coaches to FL status. I am using List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches as a guide for this one. As such, it seems that there a few major tasks needed to get it up to such a standard:

The table of coaches and their statistics needs to be expanded big time. This is without a doubt the most time-consuming part of the expansion.
Finding more images, especially of the old-timers.
Expanding the lede some more. It needs more detail imo.

If you're willing/able to help out here, especially with the first task, it would be greatly appreciated, but obviously it is your call. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I can help with at this time. Sorry. Cbl62 (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NAIA football season

Could you move 2014 NAIA football season to 2014 NAIA Football National Championship. That is what the article is about. What do you think? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps expand it to cover the entire season? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that at some point the season articles were supplanted by championship articles, and the most recent NAIA football season articles redirect to the page for that season's championship. See Template:NAIA football navbox. Maybe the creator of most of these pages and the redirects, User:Wmtribe2015, can shed some light. Lizard (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I moved the 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016 NAIA football season to the Championship name since that's what the articles are currently about. But yeah, we should be making the season articles before we do the championships. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Holland

Would you be interested in undeleting this article since he's now the head coach at Pikeville. I could just create it myself but undeleting would save the history. Sources:[8][9][10][11][12][13]. There's also more at nl.newsbank.com: "New coach ready to lead the Pikeville Bears", "Holland tabbed MSC East Coach of the Year, Nine Bears named All-Conference", "Holland is UIFL Offensive Player of the Week". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first step would be to contact the administrator who closed the AfD to see if they will consent to re-creation in light of the new information. Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Boyd dead or alive

Bobby Boyd has been edited twice in the past few days to say that he died recently, but I can't find any sources to confirm. A google search brings up a very different Bobby Boyd, and I've tried adding various keywords with still no dice. Lizard (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Lizard (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA event this Thursday

LA Meetup: September 7 edit-a-thon near DTLA

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the LA84 Foundation in Jefferson Park (near DTLA) on Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 5:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.! This event aims to improve coverage of female Olympians and Paralympians (some of whom will be attending!). There will be a deejay and food/drinks, and kids are welcome.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Join our Facebook group, follow our Twitter account, and like our Facebook page!! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Hey, I was wondering if you could do me a favor and take a look at an article, Jamie Russell. Specifically, what do you think his chances are of meeting WP:GNG? The only real coverage I'm finding is this and potentially this, though the mininggazette.com archive, where I suspect most of the local coverage of his college coaching career would potentially reside, only appears to go back to about 2013, well after he resigned as coach. I came to you, 'cause you're one of the best people I know on here at digging historical sources out of newspapers.com for stuff like this. Any chance there could be more coverage out there somewhere? Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found these: [14][15]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, guys! As a side note to all this, don't you think it's about time that we should modify NCOLLATH to just straight-out say, "NCAA Division I head coaches in major, revenue-generating sports (football, basketball, baseball, hockey) are notable." It would save a ton of time, rather then having to keep on fighting the same battles over and over again. With the deletionist bent Wikipedia is seemingly going on lately, this appears to be a issue that isn't going to go away, and, in fact, is likely to get even worse as time moves along. Right now we usually have the numbers to beat them back, but what happens if some of us have to leave or scale back our Wiki work in the future? I shudder to think how many bio articles on notable people would have been deleted over the past few years without you, Cbl62, and your amazing newspapers.com search wizardry. Thoughts? Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less sure about basketball, baseball and hockey, simply because I lack the depth of experience. As for football, I think we could garner strong support for a presumption of notability for all Division I FBS/University Division programs (and historic equivalents). Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1962 Oklahoma State Cowboys football team

FYI, 1962 Oklahoma State Cowboys football team is a redirect. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do it. Cbl62 (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox vandal

My revert on Rosey Brown was part of a sweep I was doing for edits by that IP. He's been a thorn in my side for pretty much as long as I've been editing. Some of his edits are legit, but the majority of them are easily verifiably false. Thus it's usually not worth checking each edit. Lizard (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LSU Florida 1937

Can you find a game summary newspaper article for the 1937 LSU-Florida game? It looks like Newspapers.com has some but I don't have "Publisher Extra" so I can't access them. Lizard (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. And here/here too. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the stuff. Looks like Young Bussey was the star of that game. The only player I'm aware of to play a single NFL season and be a Pro Bowler (or NFL All-Star in his case) in that season. Lizard (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the referee of the game was Ted Arnold. Cake (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warfield

Could you assess Paul Warfield? I'd rather a human do it than the "bot-assisted" assessor that comes around. Lizard (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot beat me to it. Cbl62 (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, that's not a bot. They're using rater. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh. It still seems less genuine. Lizard (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota coaches

With your interest in the Big Ten and football's early days, it might concern you that several early Minnesota coaches had their articles redirected to season articles, and now have ugly stubs. Cake (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might you be able to find anything in your Michigan sources about William Henry Poole and his time in Jackson? Cake (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1927 All-Pro Team

Did you find a source saying Wilfred Smith made the selectins? Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, found this WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Hogrogian article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just researching the same thing and there are sources that refer to him as "Wilfred". [16][17][18] There were some more too. Should we add "sometimes called Wilfred Smith" to the lead. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but those are erroneous. He wrote for the Tribune for years and his byline always read "Wilfrid". How about: ... sometimes erroneously listed as Wilfred Smith ..."

Yh, searching for ("wilfrid smith" "chicago tribune") in newspapers.com has a ton of results. We could just leave out the misspelling if it's erroneous. Or we could include the "sometimes erroneously listed as Wilfred Smith". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Illinois–Michigan football series for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Illinois–Michigan football series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois–Michigan football series until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lepricavark (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of college football seasons

Hi Cbl62, are you willing to start a discussion, or maybe just an informational post, about the notability of college football seasons at the college football project talk page? I think it would be best coming from an active member of the project. The isssue is that there are so many articles that are exactly like this 1878 Stevens Ducks football team. I'm not on a crusade to delete scores of articles, but do want to inform people, and maybe get a consensus, of the standards of notability that the project can use going forward.

I looked at the project's essay on notability of seasons, WP:CFBSEASON. There's some good stuff there, if it is followed. But the actual Wikipedia guideline for notability of seasons isn't mentioned, WP:NSEASONS. The key line there is: "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players." (emphasis in original). Both texts suggest creating groups of seasons when single seasons are not notable. I'm for that and would go further to encourage all content should stay in the team article until it is a start class article. What do you think? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and did it myself. I hope you could say a few good words at the project talk page, since it seems you agree with me. Maybe @UCO2009bluejay: does as well. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer:I am largely in favor of the creation of season articles. But I think they need to have substance. I think the vast majority of the articles can meet notability even some of the smaller schools than certain editors work on. My big problem was and is that when editors have created these articles many of them seem copy and pasted and slightly adjusted half a**ed and incomplete pages. I have been guilty of this as well, but I make efforts to remedy this issue when I am on this site.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Sure, some season articles are notable, but for what programs and what years? That's the issue. It can't be just a general principal that season articles should exist. In fact, in situations that don't fit the automatically notable cases, the guidelines - like for every other article on wikipedia - require the notablity to be proven by including reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. When the vast majority of season page creators do just cut and paste, fill in the blanks, etc, then there should be standard that they shouldn't be created. No one is going to go around adding even one local paper story about a game to the Nicholls State articles. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Beson

Wow, just wow. Thanks for fleshing out his article. Amazing, really. I just changed years played varsity football to 1947 and 1948 due to the service record. I guessed at 1945 in the first place. Thanks. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 Minnesota media guide indicates that he lettered from 1945 to 1948 on page 153. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too, Jweiss11. I'll let you guys figure the dates out. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also found press coverage indicating he played in 1945. It was not unheard of for players to be furloughed at the end of WWII allowing them to play college football before their official discharge dates. Cbl62 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point

A question, are you saying a DII season is inherently more notable than a DIII season? I'm just curious, it isn't material to my point, which was never about comparing two seasons for notability. I have no beef with a good article with good sources. I used the 70 season articles of Chico State as an example of the lack of standards for notability of the CFB project. You aren't concerned with notability at all if you set out to create an article for every season of any program. Or an article for every coach. Sure, you can do it, and even find lots of good sources for every DI program, but where do you draw the line? There is no line, and that's my first issue.

The second issue, and one that is not debatable, is the quality of the cookie cutter articles. If, as the article's creator, you aren't interested enough to write a real article, then don't create it. The project could easily discourage this. How about one favor. Please remove Carleton and Hamline from the list. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be the bright line that you seek. WP:GNG asks us to determine whether significant coverage exists in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Under this standard, each season should be judged on its own merits. As a rule of thumb, it seems pretty noncontroversial that the coverage is likely to decline as you drop down the rungs of college football: Power 5 (ACC, Big 10, SEC, Big 12, Pac 12) > Other Division I FBS (AAC, Conference USA, MAC, Sun Belt) > Division I FCS (Big Sky, Ivy League, Missouri Valley, Patriot League, Southern Conference, etc.) > Division II > Division III > NAIA. At the Power 5 level, every season will almost certainly pass GNG. At the lower levels, I'm not so sure, which is why I ran a survey on a couple of the Chico State seasons and why I also took a stab at a Carleton season. I was somewhat surprised with the coverage received by both 1953 Chico State and 1992 Carleton, both of which IMO pass GNG.

As for your second issue, I have my personal views on what should be in an article for it to be created (as set forth in my comments on the college football project page), and I am not a fan of the one sentence season articles that simply say, "The 19** ****** football team represented the University of ****** in the 19** college football season." That said, and as discussed on the project page, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for a requirement that articles must be of a certain standard before they can be created. Wikipedia allows for the creation of stubs (on notable subjects) in the hopes that collaboration will lead to the steady and eventual improvement of those stubs. Sometimes, the progress is slow, but it does happen.

As for your request to excise Hamline and Carleton from the season article campaign list, the list has been open for anyone to add to as they see fit. I don't object to removing Hamline or Carleton, but I suggest leaving a note on that talk page (Here), letting folks know that you intend to do so. If nobody objects (and I doubt anyone will), then go for it. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for a bright line. Just some effort to stop - or at least stop encouraging - the creation the hundreds of articles that shouldn't exist. Hundreds. I agree there is no standard besides notability but you keep talking like a CFB season is presumed notable, that it's okay to put a chart and one line of text into a new article and then wait to see what happens. The CFB essay and the specific notability policy say the exact opposite. If you think that standard is too strict, then work on changing it. For 1953 Chico State, which current source do you think is the most significant, that is the farthest from routine? And did the school give scholarships then? Again, just curious. Can you find anything else about the game in Mexico City? For me, that is very interesting and the most notable thing about the season. FYI, I appreciate your responses. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 07:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that "you keep talking like a CFB season is presumed notable." You are misstating my comments. To the contrary, I've advocated a presumption only with respect to Power 5 programs. With respect to articles for less prominent programs, GNG is the standard. I cautioned participants as far back as 2015 (here): "I do not believe that every season for every program warrants a stand-alone article. As for Gallaudet, Erskine, Rollins, Oglethorpe, etc., I don't know enough to say whether or not they warrant stand-alone season articles . . . I will say this, though: Before we devote substantial time creating single-season articles for little-known historical programs, it behooves us to do the work to ensure that there is sufficient coverage of those seasons to pass the GNG bar."

You assert there are hundreds of articles being created that shouldn't exist and that this needs to be stopped. Which hundreds of articles are you talking about? Give specific examples, please. The examples you've given to date are Chico State and the Detroit Titans. Based on my investigation, we disagree as to whether the Chico State articles pass the bar. And the Detroit Titans were a nationally prominent program that received extensive and prolonged coverage.

You also say that "you keep talking like . . . it's okay to put a chart and one line of text into a new article." Again, you misstate my comments. I've been clear that, though policy does not so dictate, my preference is for articles to have more substance.

I agree that the Mexico City game is an interesting aspect to the 1953 Chico State program. As for whether Chico State granted scholarship in 1953, that has no bearing on a GNG analysis. If that's of some interest to you, my best suggestion would be to contact Chico State's archives, perhaps they can provide the answer you seek. Cbl62 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop beating a dead horse. Question on removing mention of Scott Hanks' honorable mention A-A. Yes, the source is Carleton College, but every college football article relies on media guides and such for sourcing. What's wrong with using it this time? I don't understand the point of: "To the contrary, sources show he earned "college" level Academic All-American status." Did you miss this sentence: "An All-MIAC performer at his new position, he led the nation in receptions by a tight end with 63, earning All-America honorable mention." [19] And if the source isn't usable, where can you find listings of 1992 D-III A-A honorable mentions? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he was a Division III AA honorable mention, we need a reliable source for that assertion, particularly since he is a living person and WP:BLP issues apply. There ought to be some press coverage or some source out there that lists the selections. University PR departments and alumni clubs are notoriously unreliable in reporting on asserted All-America honors. Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm, there's a few All-America plaques around Tiger Stadium I wish I could pry out with a crowbar. Lizard (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did add a sentence to the article about Hanks' Academic All-America honor, which is the only AA honor I can find reported in a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article needing some research. 1910 Central Michigan Normalites football team. I corrected the infobox record. Lizard, what was that about the Little Sisters of the Poor? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: Central Michigan is a Division I FBS program. Yes, the 1910 article could use some additional work, and I welcome any efforts you might wish to make to improve it. BTW, still waiting for your answer to the question posed above: "Which hundreds of articles are you talking about?" Is 1910 Central Michigan Normalites football team intended as an example of the supposed hundreds? Cbl62 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to compromise when I said I would grant all FBS seasons inherent notability. The truth is that the 1910 Normalites season is so far removed from current FBS football that anything you say about the later has no bearing on the former. The fact that the same school played in both 1910 vs. the Flint school for the deaf and in the 2017 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl is just not relevant to the notability of the 1910 season. Your comments here and at deletion discussions, plus your praise of the creation of 70 articles of the DII Chico State program contradict your statement above that you only presume notability for Power 5 programs. You talk a good game, but your actions belie your words. For example, yes you said in 2015 "I do not believe that every season for every program warrants a stand-alone article." But since that time, your project "created more than 3,500 new season articles [in 2015] and another 2,500+ in 2016." I'm assuming at least another 1,000 were created this year. How can you countance this mass creation of articles without a presumption of notability extending far beyond Power 5 schools? You've continually added season article creations to your new article list that couldn't possibly all be notable on their own merits.

As for examples, here are 100 D-II seasons created in the last 6 months. UC Riverside Highlanders football, San Francisco State Gators football, 1954 Cal Poly San Dimas Broncos football team (no team article). I'm not trying to pick on Ocfootballknut, I'm sure he's a swell guy, it's just easy to find his created articles. I'm sure if I went looking, I could find more.

I also have a problem with your fall back argument: this is college football, of course it passes GNG. That's a presumption of notability for one, and a presumption does not mean the article should be created. For instance, the best place for the content might be in another article that has more significant coverage and provides context for the information. I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on the applicaton of WP:NSEASONS to CFB.

As for the 1910 article, the sources added so far are all routine. And my edits to the text were not in jest, I think the fact that three of the four shutouts were over HS teams is needed context. I can accept that stating the tie vs. Michigan State Frosh is the only time the Normalites didn't lose to the freshman Spartans isn't absolutely necessary, but it is truthful and does provide context, so I protest your removal of both of these statements. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legend has it the Little Sisters played an exhibition game against Michigan in 1901 and were blown out 432–0. Lizard (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just curious. How is Bud Sprague (1926 team) a consensus All-American if he was only selected to the first team of the AP? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The tackle votes in 1926 were widely split. In such cases, the NCAA looks to second- and third-team selections to determine who is considered "consensus". Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement that at least two tackles have to be named consensus All-Americans because tackle Frank Wickhorst was named a first teamer by all six of the official selectors, so I'm not sure how the tackle position was "widely split". I also don't see Sprague named as a second or third teamer by any of the official selectors. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wickhorst dominated, but the consensus team required a second tackle, and the side split was for that second spot. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA record book states "If no player meets this criterion [of receiving first-team recognition from at least half of the official selectors] at a position, the player who receives the most first-team selections at that position can be designated as a consensus All-American." Guess they needed two tackles. Lizard (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Sprague chosen over Lloyd Yoder, Lon Stiner, Orland Smith, Robert Johnson and Alfred "Al" Lassman. Sprague didn't receive any second or third team honors from any of the other official selectors. Is the AP given more weight among the official selectors?

Offical selections

Sprague (AP-1)
Yoder (AAB-1; AP-3; INS-2)
Stiner (AAB-2; INS-1)
Johnson (NEA)
Lassman (AAB-3; UP)
Smith (AP-3; COL-1)

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you getting this from the NCAA record book (or Sports Reference, which copies the record book)? There are numerous errors in the record book that will likely never be corrected because the editors don't give a damn. Lizard (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it from 1926 College Football All-America Team. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Record book (SR) has Sprague as well. Lizard (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've across many similar situations where NCAA recognizes one player as consensus over another where it appears the other has received more honors. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the 14 or so instances on List of unanimous All-Americans in college football where players who were chosen by every selector for a given year aren't listed as unanimous selections by the NCAA. I tried contacting one of the editors of the record book a few months ago asking about this and never got a reply. Not that I expected one. Lizard (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation

I'm not commenting directly on the factuality of an edit you removed on the 1910 CMU football season, but just an FYI, it was not uncommon for college and high school teams to play each other in the early 1900s. John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research request

Good evening,

There is a jpg of a book page at the top of this story: [20] I figured out the full image is [21] and the book might be called Packers of the Past. Any help in tracking the source this appears in? One more, I've applied for access to newspapers.com through the Wikpedia Library. I don't know how long that takes. There is an article in the Chicago Tribune on Sept 13, 1922. "Indiana chooses 'Cub' Buck for new grid coach". Can you clip that for me? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the book, but I found some articles that might help you flesh out the Cub Buck article: here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any reason Michigan is not listed in the independents chart of the college football season articles between 1907 and 1916? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I think the independents standing templates for early years are an abomination. See prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 18#Early era standings tables for independents.Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get page 14, the continuation of the Sport Chats article? It was just getting good. And that Chicago Tribune article would be great. Thanks again. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the Chicago Tribune article, but this one (here) likely covers the same ground. Cbl62 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of "Sports Chats" here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Just want to say in response to message you left on my talk page. Happy holidays to you too, and happy new year. Have a great 2018! ChuckNoll vs Vince Lombardi (talk) 19:48 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]