Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

More colors to delete

Per recent discussion of other list articles using team colors, can someone knowledgeable about the coding get rid of the colors on these pages?

• NCAA Division I FBS passing leaders
• NCAA Division I FBS rushing leaders
• NCAA Division I FBS receiving leaders
• NCAA Division I FBS total offense leaders
• NCAA Division I FBS field goal leaders
• List of NCAA Division I FBS scoring leaders

Cbl62 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

These are pretty egregious cases of overuse of overwhelming colors. It would be great if someone with knowledge of color coding could jump in and delete the colors. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on these egregious colors. These are also rampant on conference season articles (e.g. 2024 Big Ten Conference football season. And what about the use of colors in the tables of the "game summaries" sections of team season articles, e.g. 2024 Michigan Wolverines football team#Game summaries. I think we could so without the colors there too. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Consider making a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. It seems a matter of stripping out based on the color pattern. Unless someone wanted to do manual brute force.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give it a shot. I'll make sure that I preview everything before I submit it to make sure I did it properly and not screwing anything up.Greenday61892 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: I was able to take care of 2024 Big Ten Conference football season. However, whoever added the colors in was totally inconsistent with their piping from section to section (some versions of their piping being used literally once), so find and replace was almost entirely useless... so I have to sit and take a bit of time to consider whether I have the time to volunteer in order to continue this task for other articles. I'd love to because I'm in complete agreement that the colors are major eyesores, but if no one else is able to take it on it might be a bit before it's done. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, I think I figured out a way to still be able to use F&R. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I did most of NCAA Division I FBS passing leaders with a series of regular expressions. There's a few that didn't get captured that need to be cleaned up. Also, now that we can actually see the red links, there are some typos to correct (which were always there). Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Finished. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In this same vein, in the process of removing the unnecessary colors from Big Ten articles I've noticed there's multiple different templates that fill colors by calling a team name, some with borders and some without. What does everyone think in regard to the current state of rivalry game/trophy/series articles and coloring of the results tables? I personally feel like color does look fine (and honestly even enhancing) when it's just two or three (such as Commander-in-Chief's Trophy, Beehive Boot, et al) teams in the same table, but some matchups where the colors are similar (such as Kansas vs. Kansas State) might benefit from switching to the templates that include a secondary color as a border. Interested to hear peoples' thoughts on that. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I should add now that I think of it too, if it's decided to switch to the templates with borders, it should of course be for all matchups for consistency, not just the ones that need them more. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has objected to team colors for rivalry articles when it's just two or three different colors. The rivalry articles use Template:NCAA color cell, which has a border field that can used to add a border with the secondary team color. But I don't think adding borders is a great idea for rivalry results tables because we'll be going from two colors to four, getting closer to the rainbows we're trying to avoid. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. What should we do about the instances like Kansas/KSU where the colors in the table as they currently stand are very similar? There's some that I can't think of off the top of my head at the moment that are even closer than that pair. I was thinking that the borders would create a contrast to better distinguish them, but I get the not wanting to add even more colors as well. Greenday61892 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Renaming lists of coaches with most wins

Recently, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of college football coaches with 100 losses, User:Bagumba made the point that the titles of such articles "might be better as something like 'List of college football career wins leaders'. Unless it's deemed some magic number in sources, cutoff criteria should rarely be in titles. Per WP:LISTNAME:

Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.

I think Bagumba's advice is sound, though the new name should reflect that it is a list of "coaches". (Otherwise, "wins leaders" would be ambiguous, even moreso in sports like baseball and ice hockey where "wins leaders" typically refers to pitchers or goalies.) I propose starting with the college football list and moving it as follows:

• List of college football coaches with 200 wins --->List of college football career coaching wins leaders

I would also consider List of winningest college football coaches. It's nicely concise, but many outside the USA find the word "winningest" to be objectionable. List of college football coaches with the most wins is another option.

If you have thoughts on whether the move is needed, please reply. Similarly, thoughts on what the new name should be. Cbl62 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

In other sports areas, most stats have lists for career leaders (e.g. List of NFL career rushing yards leaders), annual leaders (list of leaders by year e.g. List of NFL annual rushing yards leaders) and single-season (highest total in a single-season, which is not necessarily the leader for a given season, just the top-X all-time for any season e.g. 2,000-yard club, List of NBA single-season scoring leaders). For naming consistency, I'd lean towards List of college football career wins leaders. I'm OK without "coaching" in the name, as I think QB wins is more of a niche stat. FWIW, baseball is inconsistent with List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders (pitchers) and List of Major League Baseball managers by wins.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If we go with the baseball precedent, we could use List of college football coaches by wins. I'm fine with any of those, but since the plan is to roll this out to other college sports as well (including baseball and hockey), I do think we should specify we're dealing with coaches. Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have a bunch of analogous lists here for other college sports; see Template:College athletic coaching wins leaders in the United States. There's also List of college football coaches with a .750 winning percentage. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If people need "coaching" in the title, then I suggest List of college football career coaching wins leaders, as it's similar format to other player stats pages of other sports leagues. —Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the move. Cbl62 (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Cbl, I see you move the similar lists for other college sports as well. Thanks for tackling that. I also moved List of college football career coaching winning percentage leaders. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

For List of college football coaches with 30 seasons, should we go with List of college football career coaching seasons leaders or (my preference) List of college football seasons coached leaders (e.g. List of NBA seasons played leaders). @Jweiss11 and Cbl62: Courtesy ping from above.—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of these lists may need some major WP:TNT treatment since they were initially built on inclusion criteria rooted in primary sources and/or original research (which inherently are worthy of deletion), but ultimately saved and kept at AfDs with secondary sourcing that establishes a completely different inclusion criteria. List of college football coaches with 30 seasons is an example of this, since it was saved and kept at AfD with sourcing that establishes active coaches as the inclusion criteria. We ought to use the available secondary independent sourcing for each topic as a guidepost for editorial decisions like page moves. In that light, it seems most sensible for the title to be something like List of active college football head coaches by tenure. Left guide (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic perspective, I generally am not a fan of "current" lists that constantly churn. Per the WP:NOTTEMPORARY guideline:

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage

—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well active coaches is what the notability of this topic is based on per the sourcing presented in the AfD. Are there independent secondary sources that cover an all-time list? Left guide (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's some:

1. "Paterno’s 46 seasons as a head coach are the second-most in major college history, trailing only Amos Alonzo Stagg’s 57." ESPN
2. "That ranks eighth on the NCAA’s longevity list, which is topped by Amos Alonzo Stagg’s 57-year career" Spokesman-Review
3. "Gagliardi's 64 years were the most in college football coaching history, surpassing the record of 57 years held by former University of Chicago and University of the Pacific coach Amos Alonzo Stagg."Fox Sports
4. "Gagliardi, who turns 80 on Nov. 1, is in his 58th year as a head coach, his 54th at Division III power St. John’s. That makes him the longest-tenured head coach in college football history, past or present. He has topped Amos Alonzo Stagg by one season, and he is ahead of Joe Paterno and Bobby Bowden, each in his 41st season as coach."New York Times

—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks for providing those. A total overhaul is probably not necessary or helpful anymore, and count me in as agreeing with one of your suggestions. Left guide (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Help requested for article creation

So I've done extensive research for good sources to create an "Uprights" article at Draft:Uprights, but I think I'm hitting major writer's block, and thus having trouble actually fleshing out the prose. If there's anyone in this project who's interested, please feel free to expand it using the many references attached (or any other sources you can find), it would be much appreciated. You can move it to mainspace whenever without having to ask or notify me, there's no WP:OWNERSHIP. Left guide (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• There is some content you may find useful at Goal (sports)#Gridiron football. Cbl62 (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also American football field § Goals and some info on placement at Field goal § History —Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced gambling odds

There is a trend among some users to add charts with unsourced gambling odds (both pregame line and over/under) as the first element in each game summary of college football season articles. Unsourced content is never good, but the potential for harm is even greater when we allow editors to add unsourced content that can influence betting decisions. IMO Wikipedia should have not be publishing such unsourced gambling odds. I've deleted these unsourced charts from the 2024 season articles on ranked teams, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I encourage others to be diligent in removing such unsourced information. (For full disclosure, I would like to see such charts elimintated as "undue" even if they are sourced, but I figure eliminating the unsourced ones is a good place to start.) Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• The only resistance I have received thus far is this revert by User:Michiganstatefan1. I have asked that user to explain their position here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Odds and over-unders generally seem WP:UNDUE, even if sourced, but they can be mentioned in prose, when relevant, such as for upsets. Oddmakers have varying odds too, so at least prose can use WP:INTEXT attribution regarding the provider.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. If there's a big upset, it's worth mentioning what the point spread was to demonstrate the magnitude of the upset, but leading each and every game summary with charts showing spreads and over-unders is undue. Cbl62 (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this content is totally unencyclopedic trivia, even if sourced. Like Bagumba said, if a big upset happens, gambling odds on the game can be mentioned in prose to illustrate the scale of the upset. Otherwise, remove it, across the board. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note that Template:Infobox college football game and Template:Infobox NCAA football yearly game have a parameter for betting odds.

Like |odds = Michigan by 4.5 at 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship PK-WIKI (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not an endorsement, but there's a bit more merit for a notable game that warrants a standalone page. —Bagumba (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In principle, I don't have a problem with including gambling stats (spreads and over/unders) to the extent that the information is accurate and verifiable and, ideally, sourced. But these gambling stats should definitely not be getting their own ad hoc tables. Rather they should be added as fields in the game summary tables that are used in the "Game summaries" sections of team season articles. But we have a more fundamental problem there because we have a massive style fork with those tables. Three different sets of templates are widely used: 1) Template:Americanfootballbox, 2) Template:AFB game box start and siblings, and 3) Template:Linescore Amfootball. Each of the three is used in thousand of articles, although of much of the use falls outside of college football. Template:Americanfootballbox appears to have wide usage on NFL team season articles. Then there's also Template:AFB game box start and Template:AmFootballGameStatistics, often used in conjunction with one of the above three to add more statistical details for a given game. We need to decide on one of these to use for college football and make that the standard. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

100% agree. I've given a bit of thought to this but never enough to make any sort of comment here with an opinion as to which style would be best. I don't do as much of the updating edits in those sections as I used to, but I'd be happy to discuss and help with the conversion if we get to that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniform color combination charts, too

Recent season articles have become a train wreck of charts piled on charts with minimal prose. Getting rid of the gambling charts is a good start, and we should continue the process of limiting such charts. Another candidate for the trash bin IMO is the proliferation of game-by-game charts displaying uniform colors (helmet, jersey, pants). E.g., 2024 Missouri Tigers football team#vs. No. 24 Boston College. As with gambling charts, we can deal with unique uniform configurations (e.g., use of a unique retro uniform for a special game) in the prose summary, but leading off each game summary with a chart showing the color combinations of pants and jerseys strike me as seriously trivial/undue. Thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that weekly uniform information seems trivial. To the extent that anything needs to be repeated weekly, it should generally be integrated into the existing game box, not separate. In the interest of making this objective as possible, I wonder if it's worthwhile to draft general principles on how existing params like TV info, weather, referees, and attendance are deemed core for {{Americanfootballbox}}, and how we would determine the notability or not of new information in future discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Such a discussion would be worthwhile IMO. I don't think, for example, names of referees and sideline reporters are "core" information that needs to be included in every game box. Cbl62 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

... a train wreck of charts piled on charts with minimal prose: I'm ok if an editor doesn't write prose as long as their tabular additions would be considered suitable for an WP:FA-version of that page. —Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how season articles without prose summaries could/should qualify for GA status, let alone FA status. Game summaries are a key element of football season articles and should include substantial prose. E.g., 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team#Game summaries. Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant whether the tables would be considered part of a final FA, not that I'm advocating prose-challenged pages for FA. —Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62, Bagumba, Ejgreen77, and PK-WIKI: Ideally, any decisions on what to cut from team season articles across the board should be updated as such at WP:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format with those points citing discussions here (WP:NBASTYLE and its "references" is a good useful example of this), so there's a concrete consensus to point to when removing or reverting large amounts of work from good-faith editors. Left guide (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem IMO is that people are just making up more and more charts and adding them to season articles without any consensus ever having been reached. Neither the gambling odds charts nor the uniform color combination charts are part of WP:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format. The addition of more and more of these charts, without any consensus discussion in support, has led to our season articles becoming, to quote myself, "a train wreck of charts piled on charts with minimal prose." To your precise point, I agree: If there is consensus for deleting elements that are part of the "yearly team pages format", then, yes, that should be updated. Cbl62 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Ok, I've gone ahead and started a "things to exclude" section at the team season style guide with shortcut WP:CFBEXCLUDE. Anyone can feel free to fill and expand. Left guide (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Governor's Victory Bell listed at Articles for deletion

The Governor's Victory Bell (trophy awarded between Penn State and Minnesota) has been listed at AFD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governor's Victory Bell

If deleted this would be the only trophy/rivalry included at List of Big Ten Conference football rivalry games without its own article. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

PK-WIKI, Please review WP:CANVASSING. While a neutral notification on a Wikiproject is specifically allowed, Inserting ann anrgument into this notification is considered campaigning for your side. Future inappropriate notifications will be brought up on ANI. Frank Anchor 17:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "North Coast Football"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of North Coast Football (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Left guide (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

All Americans

I'm going to be starting work on an All Americans list page for Oklahoma State soon and was wondering what the consensus was for which Team (First, Second, etc.) gets listed. It looks like most existing articles just list the first team selections. Is there a consensus to not list Second and Third team selections? Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 04:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If pages are using eveything but the kitchen sink for selectors (e.g. List of Oregon Ducks football All-Americans), what would be the justification for being so selective and limiting it to first team? —Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would think listing all would be fine, just wanted to find out if there was a consensus for not doing so. Most of Oklahoma State's All Americans are first team, but a few are second team. What I might do is individual tables for each team. Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 22:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Mass changes to stadium capacities

Editor S085427 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a large number (looks to be 100+) of changes to college football team and stadium articles, modifying capacity figures. The ones I've looked at are all unsourced, or differ from cited sourcing. This editor's only contributions are these edits, all made on 5 October. This is an unusual behavior, possible vandalism, so I wanted to advise this community, as members here may be more familiar with capacity figures than I am. Dmoore5556 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Their last edit at California Memorial Stadium contradicted the exisitng source. I left them a talk page message about sourcing their changes. It could be a technicality about tarps, but it needs sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That editor quite possibly may be a sock of 72.228.166.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who made similar edits, was previously banned, and just got banned again. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Power Four conferences#Requested move 1 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Power Four conferences#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD: 2015 Pac-12 Football Championship Game

There is an open AfD that the members of this project may be interested in, please see: here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redshirt

Template:Redshirt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Left guide (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

National Finalist

I was just browsing Wikipedia and saw the term National Finalist under Michigan in 2023. It kind of makes sense there, but then looking at the Notre Dame article, and in our discussion @Jweiss11 looked at Alabama and we see a number of pre-1992 listings, as well as some years ND was ranked #2 at year's end but actually won their final bowl game. Do we have any thoughts on how can assume consistency with this term "national finalist"? There's also the issue that these National Finalist designations seem to be uncited, so I'm really skeptical if Notre Dame should be called a national finalist in many of these years at all. (I'll pick on ND since I went there for grad school, but the point is a broader one.) Ultimately I'm wondering if this is sort of a retroactive move on prior football years. Maybe there are sources to support this, in which case we should add them. Jjazz76 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The 1932 Rose Bowl was a national championship game between No. 1 Tulane and No. 2 USC. The teams topped the end-of-season poll, and the committee elected to award the Albert Russel Erskine Trophy for the national championship to the winner on the gridiron.

That game is no less of a "national championship game" than, say, the 1995 Orange Bowl. It's arguably more of one, as the Bowl Coalition's game (1) did not award a trophy and their champion was still at the mercy of the polls and (2) was a No. 1 vs. No. 3 matchup that left out Penn State.

If the "National Finalist" field exists in the infobox, Tulane and USC should definitely be tallied for the 1931 season. I've previously added it to their inboxes, with citations: Tulane, USC.

Pre-1992 national championship games are collected at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Historic occurrences. I don't necessarily think all of the games there should be immediately added to every team's infobox, but there you'll find citations for our current crop of historic NCGs. Help appreciated on expansion or research on that list.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, we are talking about the NatlFinalist field in Template:Infobox college football team. See examples at Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, Alabama Crimson Tide football, Michigan Wolverines football, Miami Hurricanes football, etc. Designating "finalists" in this way before CFP, the BCS, or, moreover, the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance, seems rather tenuous and OR-ish. It might be a good idea to eliminate this field altogether. At the least, we should restrict it to finalists of tournaments, i.e. BCS-onward or CFP-onward for FBS, and NCAA/NAIA tourneys for lower divisions. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah barring some sources I'm completely missing I'm going to second @Jweiss11's suggestion. Claimed national titles and unclaimed national titles are easy to cite. The National Finalist category pre-1992 seems to open up about a million can of worms and does strike me as rather OR-ish, barring some sources I simply don't know about. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Feels weird to have editors deciding who's a national finalist and who's not without some sort of all-encompassing NCAA list or the like. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"National championship games" existed for decades prior to 1992. They are well covered in reliable sources; this is not original research. USC played back-to-back national championship games for national championship trophies in 1931 and 1932.

While we might think of it now as an "era", the Bowl Coalition was in reality a minor scheduling agreement between some of the existing bowls. One of their goals was to more reliably set up national championship games... the exact kind of existing NCGs that capped the 1985-1988 seasons in the Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl. Note that an NCG was not guaranteed post-1992: the No. 1 SEC champion (Sugar Bowl) could never match the No. 2 Big Eight champion (Orange Bowl) for example. That's setting aside that the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Rose Bowl weren't involved at all. The Bowl Coalition was a continuation of the existing Bowl system meant to offer some increased opportunity to schedule more of the existing "ad hoc" NCGs that had existed for decades.

There is zero difference between the 1988 Orange Bowl and the 1994 Orange Bowl. Both were No. 1 vs. No. 2 national championship games, seeded in the same manner. If we are including one we must include the other.

Teams like 1931 Tulane, 1932 Pitt, 1969 Arkansas, 1971 Alabama and 1973 Alabama absolutely deserve to be marked as "National Finalists" if that field exists. They played in a national championship game with a national championship trophy at stake. This is covered by reliable sources and by the very definition of the term.

PK-WIKI (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

PK-WIKI, yes, national championships existed before the BCS, but "national championships games" were tenuous and contingent on the stars aligning just right. Do any sources pre-BCS use the verbiage "national championship finalist"? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance NCGs were also tenuous and contingent on the stars aligning just right. And the stars DIDN'T align... the 1995 Orange Bowl omitted undefeated No. 2 Penn State. Luckily for the Coalition, that didn't result in a split title. The 1998 Orange Bowl didn't include No. 1 Michigan, eventual AP champion, but the "NCG" was saved by the Coaches voting for a retiring Tom Osborne. National championship games existed before the BCS, before the CFP. Adding a strict cutoff for only BCS or CFP "finalists" is what would be WP:OR. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The "Historic occurrences" lists games that weren't even #1 vs #2. Are these WP-created selection criteria? The same section also says (unsourced) Despite the promotional billing, in several instances there were plausible scenarios for a third team to be selected as national champion by the major selectors, depending on outcomes of other games.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The selection criteria is that the games were referred to by cited reliable sources as a "national championship game". PK-WIKI (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

PK, I agree that NCs and NC games were still pretty tenous/contigent during the Bowl Coalition / Alliance era, as two major conferences and one major bowl were not a part. But they were less tenuous than before. Let me reiterate a key question from above: do any sources pre-BCS use the verbiage "national championship finalist"? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a difficult phrase to search for and isolate, so I'm not sure I currently have the answer. But when the Associated Press writes a contemporary story headlined "Team Beaten in National Championship Game Due Home Tuesday" detailing the "35 green shirted heroes" returning home with accolades, IMO that's substantially the same treatment as calling them a "finalist".

I'm also not clear that any BCS-era sources use that phrasing. It's probably more from the CFP as a virtue of there being semifinal and final rounds.

Suggestion: "National championship game appearances: 1 (1931)" might be better / more inclusive phrasing for the infobox. This would also eliminate the issue with Michigan etc. where "National finalist" somewhat implies that they lost the game (which is the original issue that spawned this entire discussion).

P.S. note that in the AP column directly below the one I linked to above, they tell us that the Dickinson System trophy for 1931 was also awarded based on the results of the Rose Bowl NCG and not solely by math. That's newly discovered info that should be added to Wikipedia. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

PK, "National championship game appearances" is an improvement in terms of clarity over "National finalist", but it is pretty wordy for an infobox field label. I lean toward just eliminating the field altogether. Certainly go ahead and add that detail about 1931 to the relevant articles! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Just talking infobox only, its inclusion goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to be lean and mean. Programs are more defined by their actual championships, not being close. Otherwise, we get a mess like in basketball e.g. UCLA Bruins men's basketball, Duke Blue Devils men's basketball, Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball. —Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Independents records templates before 1962

We still have NCAA University Division and NCAA College Division record templates for independents for 1956 through 1960, e.g. Template:1960 NCAA University Division independents football records and Template:1960 NCAA College Division independents football records. I believe these are the last remants of reference to the University Division and College Divisions for football prior to 1962. Cbl62, thanks for creating regional templates for 1961, e.g. Template:1961 Eastern college football independents records. For 1946, we have the four geographical regions each split into major and non-major, e.g. Template:1946 Eastern major college football independents records and Template:1946 Eastern non-major college football independents records. We should probably do the same for all the seasons prior to 1962 going to back to the first designation of "major" programs. I believe that was in 1937? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Bowl games and WP:LIVESCORES

I am seeking input from this community as to what is considered acceptable editing of bowl game articles while such games are in progress.

I have, in past bowl seasons, seen editors add scoring detail to a bowl game article, while the game is in progress. I've done so myself at some points. Such detail appears within "Game summary" sections, for example, see 2023 Myrtle Beach Bowl#Game summary. Changes are not made to the scoreline in the infobox, but within the main body of the article itself, to capture the detail of individual scoring events, for example:

• (06:27) OHIO – Gianni Spetic 27-yard FG 11 plays, 43 yards, TOP 06:42 (OHIO 3–0)

Usually, such edits don't garner attention, but from time to time an editor will revert such edits, citing WP:LIVESCORES.

I'm interested to know if editors here feel that bowl game edits like the above example, made before a game has been played to completion, are acceptable, or not, or ? Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I try to distinguish what I personally do (I generally dont do in-game updates) versus what others want to do. I have less of an issue with scoring events or quarter score updates, if cited, as the content presumably will be retained in future versions. To that extent, I have a bigger issue with NFL and MLB updates that churn running in-season and career stats after every game; it just clogs up watchlists, page history, and servers for content that's not retained. —Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:LIVESCORES is a clause in the MOS for the snooker project so it has no enforcement power for college football or any other sports besides snooker. Has there been a consensus reached in this college football project or the general sports project? Left guide (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any prior consensus being reached here (college football project) or more broadly in general sports on this topic. Personally, I am in favor of allowing (not reverting) in-game updates of scoring plays (example above), when such updates are noting factual events and are not being displayed in the article's infobox (the infobox scoreline should be populated upon completion of the event). Other editors are welcome to add comment to see if we reach consensus. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking for consensus – are editors accepting of scoring detail (explicitly not infobox scorelines) being added to bowl game articles while a game is in progress, or do editors feel that's bad practice and such edits should be reverted, with detail only added after a game ends? Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to wait until a game is over to add any details from the gameplay itself. But reverting the addition of accurate, standardized details while the game is still in progress also seems counterproductive. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Minimums for career leaderboard eligibility

I posted this question over on the talk page for the NCAA Division I FBS passing leaders list, but figured I would ask here too, given the scope of the WikiProject. I think whatever gets discussed/decided about this could also apply to other lists such as school-specific lists. So, would just like more clairty on how we're determining minimums for career leaderboards. Because the aforementioned passing leaders list sets it at 500 attempts for pass completion percentage, but Sports-Reference sets their minimum at 875 pass attempts. Soulbust (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than "how we're determining minimums", it would seem the discussion should start with "what do reliable sources use as minimums". Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Soulbust: I redirected that discussion here (since there's already a response here) to avoid a fragemented disucssion.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

875 is also at the NCAA's record book. Incidentally, they don't have a list of leaders for completion percentage. Is it WP:UNDUE to track? —Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:FIU Stadium#Requested move 21 October 2024

An editor has requested that FIU Stadium be moved to Pitbull Stadium, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Thank you. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 18:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 Bowl page articles

We now have 2024 articles for every single bowl game, despite the fact that in all most all cases there has been no significant coverage and certainly no information that needs a new article. I suggest these pages are redirected, at least until teams are announced.

I’m not totally sure that individual pages for most of these bowls are even necessary but I’m not sure that discussion is necessary at the moment. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Individual bowl game articles have been kept overwhelmingly at AfD time and time again, since each bowl game gets fairly extensive standalone coverage from sources, but like you said this probably isn't the time/place for that discussion. As for this year's, I think it would be rather pointless to go through and redirect them at this point since they'll just all be recreated in about a month when matchups are announced, though maybe the community could come up with some sort of consensus one way or the other as to when we should wait to start making bowl game articles last year? I used to be pretty involved with this but I don't create as many as I used to so I feel the opinions of others who are more involved would be quite valuable. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I have two differing views on this. For the 2024–25 articles that already exist, removing their content (making them redirects) will just create churn, as they're all going to re-exist in a few week's time. That said, I do think the slate of bowl game articles are getting created "too soon". I looked at individual Alamo Bowl (picked randomly) articles, to see when they were created:

• 2024 Alamo Bowl created June 29, 2024
• 2023 Alamo Bowl created June 28, 2023
• 2022 Alamo Bowl created November 2, 2022
• 2021 Alamo Bowl created June 16, 2021
• 2020 Alamo Bowl created September 16, 2020
• 2015 Alamo Bowl (January) created November 20, 2014
• 2010 Alamo Bowl (January) created December 4, 2009
• 2005 Alamo Bowl created January 8, 2008 (after the fact)

I think that, in future seasons, waiting until something like November 15 or December 1 (given that bowl seasons typically starts around December 15) to create a season's slate of individual bowl game articles would make sense. The overall bowl article can be created earlier, although I noticed that 2024–25 NCAA football bowl games was created on February 20, 2024, which also feels "too soon". Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 Alamo Bowl (and others) can elaborate on how the Pac-12 is still in the mix.[8]. —Bagumba (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dmoore5556: Agreed. I am partly to blame for some of the bowl articles existing very early (there were a few years that I went through in June, right after the full bowl schedule was announced, and created all of them as stubs), and I would support a compromise that keeps those links red until later in the season. Just a matter of how to enforce that, especially with editors that aren't as closely involved with WP:CFB and don't check the talk page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a lightweight solution is to draftify it (avoids resources of an AfD). Per WP:DRAFTREASON:

The article is about an upcoming event or forthcoming work that is not notable yet, but likely to become so in the near future

It doesn't delete something that will eventually be created. Not sure if there's any arguments against this. —Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree that exceptions should be made in certain instances. If a bowl game has gotten moved for some reason that probably adds some notability in advance of the event. I just think some community consensus would be good. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

People should be able to judge by the content and cited sources what is best. WP:IAR always applies. —Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NRIVALRY

For those interested, there is a discussion ongoing to change the above guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:FIU Stadium#Requested move 21 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:FIU Stadium#Requested move 21 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

More schedule table ridiculousness

Need some eyes at the 2024 Big 12 Conference football season page. Some editor keeps reverting edits where I put the summary in the reference column instead of an external link. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also suggest adding something to the user's talk page; some other editors have raised issue there with recent contributions by this person. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, I just restored your edits, as did Jeffrey R. Clark before me. Smitty Smitty, eternal links should almost never be embedded into the body of an article like in these schedule tables. In-line citations should be used instead. The article also suffered from team color rainbow madness as well, if anyone wants to address that. It's a rampant problem on these conference season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with UCO2009bluejay's edit is they only did it for 13 games and left the remainder of the season the same. So it should either be done for all of them or none of them. I don't think citations should be used for any of the games, as it has never be done in the past Big 12 seasons at all. As far as the team colors, I've just been keeping it in line with the previous seasons. Smitty Smitty (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Smitty, it's a lot of work do all of those conversions in one edit. Fixing 13 games is progress. What's been done with the external links for prior Big 12 season is a bad habit that should stop now. There is no Big 12 specific policy or point of style here. Moreover, the issue is more fundamental than the scope of all college football, or all sports. The color issue is a persisent problem that has been discussed here before. In no way was I assigning blame to you for that. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better to just have one link to the Big 12 results page at the top of the schedule versus having 100+ links to every single game? Smitty Smitty (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Just finished converting all the external links to inline cites.--Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 23:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey R. Clark and Smitty Smitty, thanks to you both for cleaning up this article! Jweiss11 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD: 1927 Georgia vs. Yale football game

1927 Georgia vs. Yale football game has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Stand-alone articles for 100-point games

Iamsogoodatchess1469 recently created two articles for 100-point scoring games in sub-FBS play: 1980 Delaware State vs. Portland State football game (I-AA/FCS) and 2003 Trinity Bible vs. Rockford football game (D3/NAIA). Are these notable enough to warrant stand-alone articles? Or are we better off merging to 1980 Delaware State Hornets football team, 1980 Portland State Vikings football team, etc? Thoughts about these? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Question: how many 100+ point games have there been? Neutral question; it would help clarify how extra-ordinary such games are. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A lot all-time. But only three in the last 50 years. See List of 100-point games in college football. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

They are notable enough for their own articles. Rockford beating Trinity Bible 105-0 is the biggest Margin of victory in d3 football history! Portland State beating Delaware State 105-0 is the biggest Margin of victory in modern D1 history(since FCS and FBS was created in 1978) Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jweiss11, the list is quite helpful. Given the rarity of this occurring in the past 50 years, and what looks to be a good number of citations, articles about these two games doesn't strike me as problematic. In contrast, content about such games in earlier years, when it looks to have been non-extraordinary, would seem better placed in team-year articles. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I generally favor season articles over game articles except for bowl games or something truly extraordinary. Even more so for a lower-division game. For a regular season game to warrant a stand-alone article, I'd want to see enduring SIGCOV extending well past newspaper articles in the immediate wake of the game. Do we have that here? Cbl62 (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  What is SIGCOV? Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think these articles are noteworthy enough to have their own articles. They also have a number of citations from reliable sources Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so, but to establish that, we need to have WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources ... and it needs to be "enduring" beyond reportage in the immediate wake of the game. Cbl62 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't agree that "100 points" scored by two teams is a good marker of stand-alone notability. It has happened several times in the modern NFL/AFL: (i) 2018 Los Angeles Rams 54, Chiefs 51; (ii) 2015 New Orleans Saints 52, Giants 49; (iii) 2004 Cincinnati Bengals 58, Browns 48; (iv) 1966 Washington Redskins 72, Giants 41; and (v) 1963 Oakland Raiders 52, Oilers 49. None of these games has a stand-alone article. If an NFL game with > 100 points doesn't warrant a stand-alone article, a lower-division college game with the same point totals is even less likely to warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • FWIW, these are games where one team scored over 100 points. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's games where a team has scored over 99 points by themselves Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just saying that it's not a basis for automatic notability. Especially for the lower levels of amateur football. Season articles are and should be the norm. For stand-alone games, we need enduring SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. I asked at the outset: Do we have that here? Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  there are multiple reliable sources cited in both articles Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've asked several times: Which ones represent WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  The Opta Analyst site doesn't appear to meet WP:USEDBYOTHERS to be considered reliable (and the site appears to rely on AI).—Bagumba (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  But the other ones are reliable Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  As Cbl62 mentioned, sources also need to be WP:INDEPENDENT to establish notability. —Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  which sources that I cited would qualify as independent? Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  In general, media guides, press releases, websites, student newspapers and other sources published by the school, its students, athletic program, alumni association or conference, and the NCAA are not considered WP:INDEPENDENT. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Most of us have other obligations on Wikipedia and in real life, so instead of wasting community time bickering over useless WP:Subjective importance arguments, we should be collectively searching for appropriate sources on these topics. If they're available, show them or add them to the article. If searches are performed and insufficient coverage is found, then PROD them or send them to AfD. I found these two books discussing the 1980 game, but not sure about the reliability of those publishers. I'll try to search for more when additional free time is available, I invite others to assist also. Left guide (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Discussions about notability are not "useless". To the contrary, such discussions help ensure that project participants have an understanding of what's needed to satisfy WP:GNG. If you find such disussions to be "wasting community time", don't worry, there's no obligation to participate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, I agree that the three paragraphs on the 1980 Portland State game in the book on "Oregon Sports Stories" (here) is SIGCOV, and I don't see why Arcadia Publishing would not qualify as reliable. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Didn't realize that History Press is an imprint of Arcadia, which is a publisher the community seems to have a complicated relationship with. It may be necessary to scrutinize the individual book and author to judge reliability. See RSN discussions: 1, 2, 3. Left guide (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  For the 2003 game, there's this which is paywalled, and this book from a publisher that's a subsidiary of Rowman & Littlefield so it's probably reliable. This also might count. Left guide (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's actually very little in the WaPo article specifically about the 2003 game. —Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have access to the book. It's description is a bit dubious, referring to the 2003 game as part of the 2004 season:

  An account of a year in the life of the 2004 Trinity Bible College Lions, the worst college football team in the United States. Off to an atrocious start--losing the first game of the year 105-0--the Lions find themselves fighting for victory, but more importantly, dignity.

  —Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability of individual bowl games

• Question is there an reason why the rare instances (apparently, three) of a single team scoring 100 or more points in NCAA football in the past 50 years are being asked to demonstrate WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, while all articles on individual bowl games (of which, we now have 40+ each season) get an exception? Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's a good question, but there's no official "exception"; that argument is rooted in WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you believe that something like 2017 Gasparilla Bowl fails WP:NEVENT on its own merits, you are free to nominate it for deletion or propose a merge. Left guide (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe many individual bowl games would fail WP:NEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. And indeed, while any editor is free to nominate etc. etc., I have no current intent of doing so. I'm looking to understand the application of criteria. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The event notability criteria applies the same as it does any other topic area; how well-enforced it is depends on how much folks care about holding the line on notability for quality control, and how much effort they're willing to volunteer in such an endeavor. One possible idea would be to merge the non-notable ones into each season's article for bowl games collectively i.e. 2017–18 NCAA football bowl games. But one big hurdle is that it would probably take a lot of time researching per WP:BEFORE since the community may not take kindly to merges or deletions being done willy-nilly en masse. Some may look non-notable on the surface, but actually have good-quality secondary coverage when perusing through Google Books, etc. Left guide (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of college football history is best told IMO through season articles rather than thousands of articles on individual games. For this reason, I think we should limit game articles by strictly enforcing guidelines such as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. As for bowl games, WP:SPORTSEVENT, prong 2, unfortunately doesn't distinguish between major bowls and things like the 1972 Pioneer Bowl. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: bowl games, I'd assume that the host city's press combined with those of a game's respective teams, at a minimum, would account for CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps that's changed with the watered-down bowl system. A few AfDs that deleted individual bowl pages could cause SPORTSEVENT to be revisited. —Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The host city's press is typically WP:ROUTINE coverage, and sources published by the game's respective teams wouldn't be considered independent. Left guide (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the local press for the respective teams, not the school's themselves. Re: the bowl city's coverage, I used to live in a city that would write about past matchups often—not sure if that's the exception or the norm. —Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

write about past matchups often Yes, that's the type of secondary WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that would satisfy WP:NEVENT, compared to routine previews and recaps published less than a week before and after the game. Left guide (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Review of football coach (Ashley Cornwell)

Would someone who is able to approve pages be willing to review the draft for Ashley Cornwell? It should meet all of the guidelines including relevance. Please let me know what needs to be improved upon, this is a current Division 1 FCS coach who has had prior experience at Oberlin, Wisconsin, and the NFL. Patwomfcs (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The draft is located at here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have any feedback? When and how should I resubmit this page? Patwomfcs (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patwomfcs I'm not an AfC/draft submission expert, but it doesn't look like it's currently submitted and available for review; you can resubmit it by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button on the AfC template at the top of the page and following whatever further instructions there are. Just make sure the feedback from the previous two declines have been addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that someone who does not review sports pages will be in charge of submitting it. I was looking at the standards for college football coaches and this does met requirements for this community, but not others. Will submit right now with a note. Patwomfcs (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Page was declined again due to the ESPN Feature being cited on Youtube. Any guidance? Can anyone help get this approved? Patwomfcs (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Patwomfcs, why don't you remove all the citations to YouTube videos and any content that can only be attributed to those citations? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The next step should not be finding someone that will accept the article as is, the next step should be improving the article so that it meets the guidelines and can get passed by any reviewer. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear why extended discussion about a single declined draft is happening here on a WikiProject talk page (which could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOP) especially without notifying the reviewers, when the draft talk page (which is currently empty) at Draft talk:Ashley Cornwell is the appropriate venue for this. The proper approach would be to start a thread there pinging the three reviewers, and leaving a notice here if wider input is desired. Left guide (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)