Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Progress on new CFB schedule template

@Bagumba, Cbl62, Corkythehornetfan, Ejgreen77, Jweiss11, and Mnnlaxer: here is a demonstration of the new template/module: [1]. basically, the input is very similar to the output, but (1) you don't bold the W/L, (2) you split the stadium from the location, (3) you can use simple hyphens for the score and the module will turn them into dashes and align the scores by correctly padding the W/L, (4) once I get it working, it will automatically add the footnotes at the bottom of the table for timezone, non-conference game, ... please let me know what you think so I don't waste time working on something that isn't going to work. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We need a demonstration that uses all the possible fields including, time, TV, rank, homecoming, etc. The table at 2017 Alabama Crimson Tide football team would be a good example. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
see the examples in Template:CFB schedule. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Frietjes: The new template/module looks fantastic! Thank you so much for doing this! Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • looks good to me, I like it! Corky 18:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Frietjes, thanks for your work on this. What do we do about the 10,000+ articles using the old templates? How do we transition those? @Mackensen: you voiced some concerns above about long-term sustainability with unnamed parameters. Can you expand on that? @Bsuorangecrush: and @Ocfootballknut: as regular users of the schedule templates, do you have thoughts here? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Playing around with it and I'm liking what I see so far. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Jweiss11, Personally don't like single line entries that use totally freeform text and unnamed parameters. And I wouldn't have allowed programmers who worked for me to design something that way if it was going to be deployed on a widespread basis. It requires that everyone use / remember a VERY standard order that may/may not be compatible with all the options. Have run into too many cases where the entries were made in the wrong order and it turned into a maintenance nightmare. IMHO, of course, and from experience in the corporate world, not with Wikipedia. But assuming something like that goes forward, I guess I'd have to use the text "at" to denote away games and "vs" (with or without the "."?) for neutral site games? Would you just type in the rankings by the team name (Variability problem: No. 6 Princeton vs #6 Princeton vs No 6 Princeton vs 6 Princeton vs Princeton #6, etc.) Same thing for opponent ranking, of course. How does conf/non-conf fit into this? Homecoming? LOVE the addition of a source column ... it's sorely needed and totally agree with moving the rivalry notation. I will have to completely recreate my Word template that has about 800 school/stadium/nickname/year combinations, but that's ok. Same with the macros I've written. But again, that's ok. Not sure what you're planning to do with the footer.Ocfootballknut (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
        • you can type '@' or 'at' or 'vs' or 'vs.' and they get converted to the standard output. you can also type '# 1' or '#1' or 'No.1' or 'no 1' and they get converted to the standard output. I could add to that any other reasonable variation. for non-conference games you type '<ncg>' and it gets converted to the footnote. for homecoming games you type '<hc>'. I could make it automatically add the corresponding footnote to the footer when it sees this anywhere in the table. right now, you add |ncg=y and |hc=y (as before) to toggle the addition of these to the footer. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I've opened a Holding Area with some schedule chart examples using Fritjes' new template/module. My experience so far is that the ease of use is excellent. This will save hundreds of hours of editor time. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • other potential improvements could be (1) splitting the "gamename" into a separate column if say |gamename=y (off by default), (2) automatic addition of (most of) the footnotes based on what is observed in the table text, (3) calculation of the total W/L/T record with a summary at the end of the table. Frietjes (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • note that, if people are big fans of the old templates, it would be possible to make those a bit less syntax intense by introducing "zero-width columns" instead of omitting columns which would reduce the amount of syntax in the individual entries when the various columns are turned off. Frietjes (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you planning to planning to keep the old template or submit it for deletion? Fbdave (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
So long as the output is the same, why not let individual editors decide which template works best for them? Maintaining two templates doesn't seem particularly burdensome of fraught with peril. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity and long-term stability, we should certainly not have the new template and the old set of templates co-existing for more than a short transition period. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
We should be working to make the new one the best one, and migrate and deprecate the old one.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
And we should make sure the niche editors who typically create the articles for upcoming seasons know they should be using a new template. Lizard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Lizard, yes indeed. Deprecating the old templates and converting all tranclusions to the new template will be necessary. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Jweiss & Bagumba. We should only be using one uniform schedule template. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Frietjes. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I like what I see, but I have a few issues:
  1. I'm not a fan of the unnamed parameters per User:Ocfootballknut and User:Mackensen's objections above.
  2. I'd like to see the at/vs indicator and opponent rank broken out from the opponent field.
  3. I maintain that the source field is unnecessary. If a particular piece of data, like attendance or time or stadium, can't be cited from a general source for the entire table or cited elsewhere in the article, it should be cited in the particular cell, not the row.
  4. I think we should eliminate the hyperlinking in the the "Rank" column heading. The existing templates facilitate dynamic linking to the relevant FBS rankings article, e.g. 2017 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings, but we should be more flexible to serve lower divisions. Also, there are many cases where the subject team was never ranked, but had ranked opponents. In those cases, the rank column in unneeded, but a wikilink to the relevant rankings article to give context for the opponent rankings is appropriate. The place to do all this linking is in the footer.
  5. Finally, and most importantly, the roll-out of the new template requires a plan to convert the 10,000+ transclusions of the old templates, so that we can keep things synced up and deprecate the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Jweiss' comments:
  • After seeing the new template, Mackensen expressed no such objection. To the contrary, and when you posed the question to him, he said "I'm liking what I see so far." The entire reason for the revision was to eliminate the "questionnaire" format and greatly simplify editors' ability to copy and paste game data into a simple format such as this. It allows for a schedule chart to be created in about one-fifth the time required by the painful old "questionnaire" format. Reverting to the old format in which 20 or so pieces of data had to be separately inserted, one by one, into a particular named module for each game defeats the whole purpose of the new template. We have a huge backlog of articles without schedule charts, and the new format has proven to be a way to quickly work through that backlog. That's a very good thing.
  • Why is it better to break out the at/vs indicator and opponent data into a separate column? That complicates the structure, requires more editor time, and does so without any real benefit. Simpler is better.
  • As for the "Source" column, it is optional, but the majority of those who commented seem to favor it.
  • If someone wants to devise a way to convert all of the old charts, that's sounds perfectly reasonable, but I don't see that as reason to delay roll out of the new template for newly-created schedule charts. Cbl62 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I like it, I don't see any problems with the new template. I do agree with Jweiss and think that "Rank" should be unlinked... I never have been a fan of that. Is this something a bot can do or will we have to do this manually? Corky 19:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to unlinking the "Rank" bit. Cbl62 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Corky, we don't want to merely unlink the rank header. We want to move to the link to footer. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd favor the link in the footer over the header. Corky 22:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Cbl, you just don't get it, do you? We're not going push this new template out unless we are prepared to deprecate the old ones. There will not be two sets of concurrent schedule templates. I know that's what you want, because it will allow you to move forward with your personal editing agenda. But it's not in the best long-term interests of the project. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Huh? Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I see my suspicion was correct. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
My "huh" was actually inspired by (i) the placement of your comment beneath my question regarding the footer, and (ii) your continuing to refer to my motives as "self-serving" or my having a "personal agenda". My only agenda is to improve the encyclopedia. Frietjes has created a better mousetrap that allows us to create high-quality schedule tables MUCH more quickly. I've already prepared more than 200 schedule tables using the new template and can easily roll out hundreds more. Nothing self-serving about that. As for your substantive point, I have no objection to suspending use of the old template. Cbl62 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The speed at which you can create a schedule table depends a lot on which table you are creating and how you are creating it. If you wish to created one for 2018 Maryland Terrapins football team, which will undoubtedly come online in the near future, the easiest way might be be to copy the table at 2017 Maryland Terrapins football team or 2016 Maryland Terrapins football team and modify accordingly. Guess which templates the 2016 and 2017 Maryland articles are using? Perhaps you should slow down prototyping instantiations of the new template in your user space, because the new template isn't finalized—there may well be changes to it form—and we don't have a plan to convert all 10,000+ tranclusions of the old templates to the new one. Before that happens, we can't suspend use of the old templates and we can't roll the new template into production. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"Guess which template the 2016 and 2017 Maryland articles are using?" Ummm ... the old one? Since that's the only one that's currently in use. Look, your opposition to the new template is clear. If you really had the best interests of the project at heart (as you have in the past), you would assist with its prompt rollout. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm very much in favor of a new template, done properly. I think, frankly, you are out of element here. Templates and data management don't appear to be your strong suit. You seem be having difficulty understanding the issues at stake here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't take an IP expert to recognize the high quality of Frietjes work. The only one who is "out of element" is you when it comes to courtesy and grace. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, since my name has been used twice here, while I don't like non-named parameters it's obvious that's the way you're headed. Please make sure you have a plan to take care of the two major issues you're going to have with this:
  • Maintenance when people create schedules with the un-named parameters in the wrong order (this WILL happen)
  • Conversion of existing schedules, and newly created ones to the new template. People will continue to use the old version as long as it's available. It's the path of least resistance. So the sooner you have a plan to convert all of them to the new format and eliminate the old one the better. Ocfootballknut (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
OC - Agreed that maintenance will be required if people get things in wrong order. My view is that this effort will be worthwhile and more than offset by the increased speed in creating new charts. (The old template also has significant maintenance issues when people mix up various on/off options.) Try creating a sample chart with the new template. I think you will end up liking it. I am happy to help in any way I can. As always, your efforts in building out the California articles are appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Frietjes: I like your idea of automatically computing W/L/T at the bottom of the chart. Could we also have it automatically compute at the bottom the total points scored and allowed by adding the figures in the Result column? Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    Cbl62, yes, any parsing of the W/L/T and scores should be possible. I plan to wait until we are absolutely sure that this is the desired new input format before adding any new features or functionality. it is still possible to support named parameters (without number suffixes) if that's more desirable. I could mock up an alternative version to show what I mean. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Frietjes: Is it possible to construct the template so that an editor can choose named or unnamed parameters based on personal preference? Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    Cbl62, yes, that would be possible. basically, we could have a |entries= where you could pass a bunch of {{CFB Schedule Entry}} templates, but with the syntax improvement that you can omit non-applicable parameters. in other words, you wouldn't need to say |tv=no in every entry (just once at the top). Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    User:Frietjes, thanks, that's very intriguing. Might be just the thing to satisfy those who prefer it either way. Would you be willing to mock it up to see if it satisfies the group? Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Progress on CFB schedule template with named parameters

@Bagumba, Cbl62, Corkythehornetfan, Ejgreen77, Jweiss11, Mnnlaxer, and Ocfootballknut: hopefully I am not providing too many options here, but based on the comments concerning unnamed parameters, I have implemented alternative syntax which is much closer to the old templates. for a comparison, see the second syntax example in each of the examples. note that we are using lowercase {{CFB schedule entry}} in these examples. I have not updated the rest of the documentation.

  1. {{CFB Schedule Entry}} and {{CFB schedule entry}} are nearly identical in function, but {{CFB schedule entry}} adds some invisible markers needed for {{CFB schedule}} to parse the entries.
  2. With the old {{CFB Schedule Entry}} you have to say |tv=no to turn off the TV column. with the new {{CFB schedule entry}} you can remove the column entirely instead of saying |tv=no. the way omitted parameters are treated is the only functional difference between the two templates. to see a comparison, look at the testcases
  3. If we go with the new system, we can merge {{CFB Schedule Entry}} with {{CFB schedule entry}}.
  4. If {{CFB schedule}} detects that a column is completely empty, it will remove the column. so, you never have to say |tv=no to remove the TV column. however, you can override the removal of an empty column (e.g., the TV column) with |tv=y.
  5. the {{CFB schedule}} and {{CFB schedule entry}} templates understand the key words <ncg> and <hc> and will appropriately add the footnotes at the bottom of the schedule.
  6. you should be able to add the opponent rank to the opponent name using '#1' and the template will automatically read this and change it to 'No. 1'. or, you can leave it as a separate parameter as well.

let me know what you think. clearly the amount of typing is more with the named parameters vs. the unnamed parameters, but the syntax is less of a change from the old, and conversion from the old to the new should be fairly simple. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Something for everyone. One syntax allows rapid cutting and pasting and table creation. The other can be used by those who prefer the named paramaters and also facilitates easier conversion of older tables. Your assistance is much appreciated, Frietjes! Cbl62 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of new CFB schedule template

@Bagumba, Cbl62, Corkythehornetfan, Frietjes, and Jweiss11: I've just created the 2018 Maryland Terrapins football team page using the new template, and wow. From a somewhat avid college football page editor and creator, it's amazing. Very easy to use, saves tons of space (the entire schedule takes up the same amount of space in the source code as one or two games would with the old template), and saved me tons of time; I did the entire schedule in 3-5 minutes. I didn't want to take a side in this, but from the perspective of someone uninvolved at all in this argument up to this point, the new template is very easy to use, I love it, and I support implementation of this template in CFB pages as opposed to the old template. If its alright, I'm going to switch over to the new template in all season page articles from this point on. A massive thank you to User:Frietjes, your work is extraordinary. PCN02WPS 17:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending issues for discussion re new template

This is my attempt to capture the pending issues regarding the new template. I list them so that consensus can hopefully be reached relatively soon. Issues include:
1. Should we include the dual syntax allowing users to choose either unnamed or named parameters? I am a big fan of unnamed parameters (as it allows much greater speed in chart creation), but have no objection to using the dual syntax for those more comfortable with named parameters. The optional, dual syntax strikes me as a reasonable compromise.
2. Should "at/vs" be broken out into a separate column? Jweiss11 raised this above. I think it's better to have fewer columns, as it facilitates the use of unnamed parameters, but don't feel terribly strongly. What do others think?
3. Should we include the "Source" column? Most comments above seem to favor it, and I believe it is useful as an extra optional feature.
4. Unless there's any objection to Jweiss11's suggestion above, the wikilink for rank should be moved to the footer.
5. Should we take Frietjes up on their suggestion to add coding that will automatically compute W/L/T at the bottom of the chart? I think it's a good idea. I also favor having it coded to automatically compute at the bottom the total points scored and allowed.
6. In the latest revision, a "#" was added to the column which automatically triggers a footnote about polls. This is being included even in charts where it is inapplicable. See 1891 Princeton Tigers football team#Schedule. This should be remedied so that the footnote only appears where ranking information is actually used.
7. Should users be permitted to start now using the new template in main space? PCN02WPS has asked for permission to begin using it. I also favor this. If rollout is to be delayed further, I have no strong objection so long as we move promptly to resolve the remaining issues.
If others have suggestions/issues, please add them here. Let's work this week to resolve the open issues. Cbl62 (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Just a comment: I'd love to have the WLT and total points for-against automatically computed at the bottom of the schedule. I think those would improve the template. I've used the template in several articles up to this point and it's saved me countless hours already, I can't wait until this template is fully implemented into CFB articles. PCN02WPS 03:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
2) at/vs needs to be broken out as its own parameter. We have 10,000+ tables out there already with those data points isolated. We should not wash that away when we convert to the new tables. Leaving it isolated gives us flexibility to do more things down the road. 3) Source column is unneeded as I've explained above. 4/6) Yes, the wikilink for rank should be moved to footer, but we should have a systematic rendering of the link like we have in the existing templates, but it should be more flexible to serve sub-FBS divisions. 7) No, please stop trying to rush this. This new template should not be moved into production yet. We need to resolve all these issues, see the protoype, and and write up clean and clear documentation before that. We also need a plan regarding how we are going to convert the old tables to the new template. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, opponent rank need to be it own parameter. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
the at/vs has been split into it's own input column. the source column is completely optional and off by default. I will move the rank link shortly. I don't see a need for a separate opponent rank column, the module already parses the opponent text and can detect if the opponent starts with a '#' or a 'No' or any other lua expression. if you want to use a keyword for this, like <#1> or <#>1, we can certainly support that as well. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Frietjes modified the new template to (i) add optional "at/vs" and "opponent rank" columns and (ii) fix the issue raised in point 6. Thank you to Frietjes for those fixes. Accordingly, I've stricken points 2 and 6 above to indicate that they are resolved. Please chime in on the remaining points. Cbl62 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I have created a lua module that _should_ automate the process of converting from the old to the new syntax. I will wait to post the link and instructions until there is consensus to roll out the new format. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Frietjes: Thank you. With the ratings link resolved, I've stricken point 4 above. The consensus appears to favor the new template, but maybe we should wait til early next week for any others to weigh in on points 1 (dual syntax), 3 (source column), and 5 (computation feature). Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant above by a dynamic, yet flexible rank link in the footer, I think there should be three parameters here, for year, division, and poll.

  1. rank_year = 2017
  2. rank_division = NCAA Division I FBS
  3. poll = AP

This would dynamically render a wikilink to 2017 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings#AP Poll. This would also facilitate links to articles like 2010 NCAA Division I FCS football rankings, 1958 NCAA College Division football rankings, 2017 NCAA Division II football rankings, and 1999 NAIA football rankings. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • After another week, the only pending issue appears to be Jweiss' unopposed tweak to the rank link in the footer. @Frietjes: Is that something you could implement? Once that's done, does anyone see a reason to delay the conversion and roll out? Cbl62 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Cbl62, that part should be mostly done or done. there are eight different combinations of |rankyear=, |rankdivision=, and |poll= being blank or not-blank to think about. I believe I have logic in there for all eight, and I tried to document the logic in the template documentation. but, you and Jweiss11 should test it and tell me if there are any problems. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: You want to try it out? If that looks ok to you, we should be ready to convert and roll out. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Frietjes, the logic on the rank info/links in the footer looks right. Thanks for your work on that. One more thing we missed though: the gamename field (where rivalry and bowls are listed/linked) need to be in its own field, not just place parenthetically in the opponent field. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on new template, {{CFB schedule}}

@Cbl62:, @Frietjes:: can we slow down on the premature roll-out of the new template please? We still have the outstanding issue of the gamename field I pointed out above.

More generally, the new template doesn't seem to be as flexible and tedium-reducing as I think we had hoped, at least not in the cases where unnamed parameters are used. Take the table at 1960 UMass Redmen football team. If I wanted to eliminate the Time or Rank field, I was hoping all I'd have to do was change the one pavement for each (e.g. rank = y --> rank = n). But then I was also have to remove a pipe in each and every row, and I have to know which pipe, which isn't totally obvious. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

the fields are in the order in which they appear in the table. so, if you are removing a column before the opponent, you would remove the pipes before the opponent. if you are removing a column after the opponent, you would remove the pipes after the opponent. adding yet another column for the gamename would make things even more confusing. Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I fixed the 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965 UMass charts by removing the unused columns. Once you get the hang of the columns, it's pretty straightforward. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Frietjes on adding another column. It was for this same reason that I was reluctant about adding a separate column for "at/vs". Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Frietjes: Jweiss' concern arises in the context of the conversion of existing charts. Unfortunately, we have a legacy of many old charts with empty time, rank and attendance columns. Is there a way to drop the empty columns automatically as part of the conversion process? Also, is there a way to automatically grab the "rivalry" parentheticals and move them from the city column to the opponent column? Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Cbl62, yes, we can have the gamename as a parenthetical after the opponent instead of after the city (see Category:Pages using CFB schedule with gamename after location for cases where it is after the city). and, yes, we can have the table converter drop empty columns if the header does not have it turned on. sometimes you want to leave a column blank for filling in later. in the case of 1960 UMass Redmen, it had empty columns before I did a test conversion. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I figured that's what happened with the 1960 UMass chart. My view would be that it makes sense to remove empty "time", "rank", "tv", and probably also attendance columns as part of the conversion. Many of these columns have been empty for years, and it makes the charts look incomplete. If and when someone gets around to adding these data points, it's relatively easy to restore the columns. (Jweiss may feel differently about the attendance column, and I'd defer if he objects to removing when empty.) If we can move the gamename to after the opponent, that would be ideal; it saves the process of manually moving them all later. User:Jweiss11: Does that sound ok to you? Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The solution here is to used named parameters with the embedded Template:CFB schedule entry. In those cases, the column displays only when the relevant fields are populated. If we are automating conversation of the old templates to the new ones, why wouldn't we convert things this way? Also, can we please stop creating more and more instances of the new template before things are finalized and the bugs are worked out? Jweiss11 (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you are suggesting? The dual syntax compromise was proposed on January 23, promptly implemented, and nobody objected then or in the three weeks since that time. Like User:PCN02WPS who commented above about how the unnamed parameters option was "extraordinary" as a time saver, I concur -- it saves tons of time in creating new charts and greatly facilitates the elimination of the backlog of articles without charts. Are you now reverting to your prior position of opposing unnamed parameters under all circumstances? Or are you simply suggesting that the default for conversion of old charts is the named parameters syntax? Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
At minimum the default conversion of the old charts should used the named parameters syntax. I understand that the unnamed parameters may save some time for some editors to roll out new tables, but the named parameter scheme makes it much easier to add or remove columns later on. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I leave it to Frietjes to determine whether conversion of old charts works best with the named or unnamed paramters, but we absolutely must preserve the unnamed parameters option. Cbl62 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have implemented code to (1) convert from the unnamed to the name parameters and (2) convert the old schedule tables to the new format, but still using named parameters (I can provide details if needed, with the understanding that you should be careful to inspect the results when converting). I changed any of the old charts that I had converted to use the named parameters. you can track any of the new tables using named or unnamed parameters using Category:Pages using CFB schedule with named parameters and Category:Pages using CFB schedule with unnamed parameters. the new module using named parameters is an improvement over the old tables in that (1) you don't need to say 'no' to omit a field, (2) most empty columns are automatically removed if there are no entries, and (3) you can override the removal of empty columns by adding a parameter to the outer table template call. Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Template for discussion

I've nominated a few templates for deletion that apply to college football bio articles. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 17. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

CFB Yearly Record template question

How do I get rid of all of the columns but the Year, Team, and Overall columns on a coach's yearly record table? I'm trying to do it on pages such as Mark McMahon (American football) and Fred Ewing, but I can't get it working right. When I set the conf and bowl parameters in the CFB Yearly Record Start to "no", there's still two boxes on the subtotal and end lines. Kobra98 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD raising issues of interest

An AfD of potential interest to members of this project has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1974 Boston University Terriers football team. It presents issues as to whether or not (i) game coverage can be used to establish the notability of a college football season, and (ii) WP:NSEASONS prohibits articles for seasons in which "the team barely cleared .500 and finished fifth in its conference." Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Augustana Vikings (South Dakota)

There is a page for Augustana University's athletic program Augustana University Vikings, and a category Category: Augustana (South Dakota) Vikings, obviously this needs to be standardized under one name. This is an issue because Augustana College (Illinois) also uses Vikings as their mascot. I absolutely favor using "(South Dakota)", but I really won't be at all upset if "University" becomes the consensus pick.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up... I did a RM at Talk:Augustana University Vikings a year ago with no objection. That's why the article is at its current title. Corky 00:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Should Category:Augustana (Illinois) Vikings be similarly moved to Category:Augustana College Vikings? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I would support if this move was nominated.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Military service teams

Did you know . . . that 12 of the top 20 "college football" teams in the final 1944 AP Poll were military service teams? See Template:World War II service football teams navbox. This is a long-neglected topic here at the WikiProject College football. Many of these athletes went directly from the gridiron to the battlefield or to the skies over Europe and the Pacific. Consider adopting a team and developing its coverage more fully. Cbl62 (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, nice work on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, J. Cbl62 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cal State East Bay Pioneers football

I have nominated Category:Cal State East Bay Pioneers football and it subcategories for renaming. Please see the dicussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame

I nominated Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame for deletion a couple weeks back. It has been relisted. We could use some more commentary to reach a decisive closure. Please see the discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 25#Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw a consensus, and went ahead and closed it.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

UMass rivalries

I was thinking about adding additional rivalries to the UMass sports pages. I realize its a big school, but the sports programs are not nationally very well known. Specifically, I'd like to change the BC-UMass football rivalry to a general rivalry page (UMass plays them annually in Olympic sports, baseball, softball, and hockey as well), and leave the basketball rivalry page as is since it has a name. I was thinking of changing the UConn-UMass football rivalry page also to a general rivalry page for the same reasons as BC. After that, I was thinking of adding a Temple-UMass general rivalry page, a UMass-URI general rivalry page, and a UMass-Maine football rivalry page.....any thoughts?....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • We already have seven stand-alone rivalry articles for Boston College football: (1) Green Line Rivalry, (2) O'Rourke–McFadden Trophy, (3) Holy Cross, (4) Notre Dame, (5) Syracuse, (6) UMass, and (7) Virginia Tech. Your proposal would add three more (Temple, URI, and Maine), bringing the total to 10. I haven't researched each of these to determine whether WP:NRIVALRY would be met, but 10 stand-alone rivalry articles for Boston College strikes me on the surface as being excessive. Even major programs don't have that many. Compare USC (3), Ohio State (4), Florida State (4), Oklahoma (4) and Stanford (4). Notre Dame has 10, but they are Notre Dame. Cbl62 (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you misread, Cbl62. He wants to add Temple, URI, and Maine for UMass, not BC. That said, I don't think any of those rivalries would meet WP:NRIVALRY. Ostealthy (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread it. Cbl62 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Kansas State–Nebraska football rivalry

Is Kansas State–Nebraska football rivalry a rivalry worthy of an article? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Kansas–Nebraska football rivalry seems a little questionable too. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Both worthy of deletion, in my opinion. A series being long-standing is not by itself reason for notability. Nebraska dominated both series, and there is little history of notable games or animosity between the schools. Ostealthy (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Prior to its interruption in 2011, the Kansas–Nebraska football rivalry was "the longest continually played series in NCAA Division I-A." See here and here. One of the interesting points in the rivalry's history is that the 1906 game reportedly gave birth to the term "gridiron" as vertical yard lines were for the first time painted onto the field. See here at p. 22. Also, Fielding H. Yost left Nebraska after the 1898 season to coach for the rival Jayhawks in 1899. Yost proceeded to lead the 1899 Kansas team to an undefeated season, including a victory over Nebraska. Yes, the rivalry was one-sided for much of its history, but it was once one of the premiere rivalries in the Midwest. See, e.g., here and here. From 1892 to 1909, each team won eight games. Later, during the quarter century from 1944 to 1968, Nebraska won 13 games to 12 for Kansas. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The Kansas State-Nebraska rivalry held 89 straight games from 1922 to 2010 and the teams met a total of 95 times so far, going back to 1911. That doesn't meet the "100-game-threshold" for listing in List of most played college football rivalries in NCAA Division I but it's close. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be a notable rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Future and Current class assessments

Are the Future and Current assessment classes for this project of any use to anyone here? See Category:College football articles by quality. Articles created in the run-up to a new season get assessed as Future-class upon creation and most tend to never get changed to Current-class one the season starts. Then after the season is over, most of these all remain as Future or Current class until someone (usually me) rerates them (mostly as Stubs) on the quality scale months later. It's a lot of administrative work that doesn't seem to be of use to anyone here. Should we eliminate the Future and Current assessment classes? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Eliminate it. I've never seen anyone offer a useful reason for the admin overhead.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Bagumba, what's the process for eliminating an assessment class? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it can be zapped from Template:WikiProject College football/class.—Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I think it was one of those things that looked like a good idea at the time, but in practice has become cumbersome.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Bagumba, thanks for pointing me there. I zapped them. All Future-class article should no be unassessed. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@CAWylie:: FYI. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11:You're welcome. I'm doing it for basketball articles too. Some of their "currents" go back a few years. — Wyliepedia 02:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I was going to suggest WikiProject College Basketball do the same. Thanks again. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs --> Category:Amherst Mammoths

I have proposed that Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs and its subcategories be renamed. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This CfD is now over a month old with unanimous support for the move, but hasn't been closed. Do we have an admin here who can close it? Jweiss11 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes

I have nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ESPY Award navbox

FYI

There is a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Template:ESPY Best Male College Athlete for an ESPY Award frequently won by college football players.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Season articles

We now have season articles for every historical season for every program in the Big 10, Pac 12, SEC, and Big 12. The only Power Five programs that do not have a complete run of season articles are from the ACC: Boston College; Louisville; North Carolina; NC State; Syracuse; and Virginia. It would be nice to have full coverage for Power Fives before the 2018 season starts. Cbl62 (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Update on new CFB schedule templates

The new CFB schedule templates (Template:CFB schedule and (Template:CFB schedule entry) are now transcluded on about 500 articles. The old templates (Template:CFB Schedule Start, Template:CFB Schedule Entry, and Template:CFB Schedule End) are still translcuded on over 11,000 articles and are being used in virtually all of the new articles that continue to pour in daily. @Cbl62: and @Frietjes: do we have a plan to transition all of the articles in question to the new templates so that we can keep things streamlined and unforked and deprecate/delete the old templates? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[2] Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, how and when does the conversion of the 11,000+ articles with the old templates happen? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
you could make a WP:BOTREQ. to use the conversion module you (1) add {{subst:#invoke:CFB schedule/convert|subst| at the top of the table, before the {{CFB Schedule Start}} and }} to the bottom after the {{CFB Schedule End}}. (2) press show preview and compare the output to make sure nothing went wrong. (3) press save. if I were to write a bot to do this task, I wouldn't have the bot use this method, since there are safer ways for a bot to do the conversion. Frietjes (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed this new template. Have you guys had a thorough discussion about the use of unnamed parameters? I have a feeling that's going to cause a ton of issues. If you enter the data in the wrong order, it can't catch that, right? And what if we want to add a new column. We'd have to put that data at the end, or have to modify every article that uses the template. I agree that the schedule template could use a lot of improvements, but I think named parameters would be the way to go. Also, it doesn't look like you can put each unnamed parameter on a single line? To me, that's the best way to make an article readable.
Are there any other templates that use unnamed parameters exclusively like this one does? If this is the first one that uses this many, I'm nervous that this isn't the way to go.
I know it's annoying I'm chiming in with complaints, especially if you have everything resolved already. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we had an extended discussion concerning the pluses and minuses of both named and unnamed parameters. The result was a compromise that provides dual syntax, so that those uncomfortable with unnamed parameters can use the version with named parameters. The unnamed parameters version allows for much more rapid creation of schedule charts and is similar to the format used for other major sports. See NFL, MLB, and NHL versions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Cbl. You have alleviated my concerns :) — X96lee15 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate my position—held throughout the discussion on this topic in recent months—that the use of unnamed parameters is probably short-sighted, offering ease-of-use for some editors at the expense of 1) long-term sustainability and flexibility and 2) simplicity of understanding as new editors come to use the templates. It would be nice if we could have an automated process to convertedthe instances of unnamed parameters to named parameters. The more paramount concern at the movement ought to be converting the old templates to the new templates (with named parameters!) and deprecating the old templates. Frietjes seems to suggest she has an automated process for this, but it remains unclear how this will work or who will run that process. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
That the unnamed parameters version has been successfully rolled out into hundreds of articles belies any concerns expressed about sustainability, flexibility, or simplicity. IMO it works beautifully and has already saved hundreds of hours of manpower. Thanks to User:Frietjes for their efforts in making the new template available with dual syntax. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, Cbl62. How can you tersely put down concerns about sustainability and flexibility when the future hasn't happened yet? Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in precisely the situation I feared—with a standing forking of the templates. This need to be resolved. @Frietjes: can you please respond substantively to my questions about the conversion of the old templates? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I have used my power of precognition to examine the schedule charts many years in the future ... there is nothing to worry about. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Tom Cruise told me you're wrong! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Module for infobox college coach

I noticed that some college coaches that later entered politics such as Tom Osborne, has two navboxes for both politics and political service. In regards to a former governor of Kansas Andrew Frank Schoeppel, who coached collegiate football, I tried to create a meshed navbox for the latter like we do other figures such as Mark Harmon, and Bill Bradley. For some reason I couldn't get it to work. Can anybody help with this?--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay: {{Infobox college coach}} needed the option to embed in order for it to work. I have updated Osborne's article to reflect the changes. Corky 23:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD: T. L. Anthony

T. L. Anthony as been nominated for deletion. Anthony was the head football coach at Atlantic Christian and played at Georgia, where he was a member of the national champion 1920 Georgia Bulldogs football team and a selection to the 1921 College Football All-Southern Team. Can we beef this one up and perhaps save it? @MisterCake:? @Cbl62:? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Portal:College football

A proposal has been made to delete Portal:College football (and all other portals) at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals. What are folks views on the college football portal? It doesn't appear to be maintained or updated on any regular basis. Do folks think it is useful? Assuming the RfC does not succeed, would anyone want to volunteer to update and maintain it? Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Loyola Ramblers display name

You are invited to join a discussion around potential changes to this school's athletic display name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Loyola Ramblers display name. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes

I recently nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. The discussion, which you can view at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3, was unfortunately closed with no consensus. If I nominate this again, do I have support to delete? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay: @Corkythehornetfan: @Billcasey905: you guys all do a lot work with college sports templates and categories. Can you look at this and let me know if you'd support a second nomination to delete this category? Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
You've got my support. It's not needed and we don't do it for other conferences. Corky 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Concur also. Sorry I missed it the first time around. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I have nominated this category again. Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this nomination was speedy kept by User:BrownHairedGirl, who appears to motivated to spite me at any chance she can going back to a dust-up we had several weeks ago. I'll plan to open an item at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents over this. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have opened the item at ANI. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My ANI was dismissed. I suggest someone else nominate this category unless you want to live with for I don't know how long. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Let the situation die down and renominate it in a few months. It's the best option for all involved. Corky 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's best if I not be the one to nominate it. This whole thing is absurd. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Conference list of seasons

Do all conference navboxes (e.g. Template:Pac-12 Conference football navbox) link from "Seasons" to something like List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present) instead of to List of Pac-12 Conference football seasons? As an offshoot of the #List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958) discussion (above), it struck me if this type of standings list is really encyclopedic. Then I see that Pac-12 Conference football statistics exists which just shows what place each team finished each year, which seems a more compact way to present the annual standings, while providing an easier way to navigate to individual seasons. There can always be an external link to some site that has the full blown historical standings.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if those standings lists exist, then they should be included in the navboxes. The navboxes themselves are irrelevant here. This is really a question about which articles should exist. That Pac-12 statistics article is a one-of-a-kind outlier that uses problematic, non-standard abbreviations to achieve that compactness, and gives an obscure presentation of content that pushes the boundaries of what is probably appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In other words, that article is a good AFD candidate. The standings lists are also far more useful because they present win-loss records, rankings, and links to relevant season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, that wikilink on “Seasons” should be removed because its redundant. I did not realize when I made my comment above that there was a wikilink there. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Cat-wide, the group name isn't not a link, the CSS hides discovery of "Seasons" being a link, and the standing link(s) are already present within the "Championships & awards" group. I will dedupe the cat's navboxes per agreement on this improvement/consistency. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, thanks for taking care of that de-duping. If there was an article named List of Pac-12 Conference football seasons, it would indeed be appropriate to link it from "Seasons" at Template:Pac-12 Conference football navbox. That would parallel the links from "Seasons" at team navboxes like Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox to List of Michigan Wolverines football seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A deletion review for CfD of Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes has been opened...

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 26#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

More Louisiana–Lafayette nonsense

I don't want to say "I told you so," but I knew this was going to happen if we went along with this POV-pushing scheme. See Tony Robichaux for an example of what I'm talking about, "Louisiana" is now anachronistically being applied on all seasons dating all the way back to the year 2000. This is going to effect any and all articles dealing with the history of University of Louisiana at Lafayette athletics, including, but not limited to; program pages, team season articles, bio articles for coaches and players, etc. In a perfect world, I would like to believe that all of the folks who voted with the PR machine in favor of moving the article would volunteer for cleanup duty, but I'm not that naive. Still I'd like to raise the issue here in hopes of getting some eyeballs on these articles; if past history is any indication, this will be a recurring issue that will drag on for years into the future. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, this seems like a pretty isolated incident unless you have more examples. And I kinda don't see a problem with it. Having different names for the same school in record tables could cause confusion, so maybe it's best to retroactively apply the current name. Details can be explained in prose. Lizard (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Billcasey905 fixed the Robichaux example. If there are others, I'd be happy to help. It's my view that team naming, whether in tables or text, should follow the naming convention that was in force at the time of the events being reported. See, e.g., Ralph H. Young (referring to his program as "Michigan Agricultural" until 1924, then "Michigan State" after name change) and Jim Lookabaugh (Oklahoma A&M, not Oklahoma State). Cbl62 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Lizard, it's certainly not best to "retroactively apply the current name". Cbl62 is correct that we shoud use "he naming convention that was in force at the time of the events being reported". Any needed detail about name changes can be clarified in prose in a footnote. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
With respect to Robichaux, though - is that really the way to go? three different school names in one entry? I'd argue that these will all come out in the record table anyway, is including all of the historical names needed in the infobox too? I have no issue with applying the retro school name if it was current at the time, but am questioning those relatively few exceptions where a coach tenure cuts across two or more names. I guess I don't see the issue with just using "Louisiana" for Robichaux and see it as preferable to three names. Rikster2 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, we had another incident tonight (see here). Like I said, this is going to keep happening over and over again for the foreseeable future. This one also involved changing a vacated win to a victory. Joy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Big Sky football team navigational boxes

As an administrative action, I have nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion. The new discussion is here. Also pinging @Corkythehornetfan and Bagumba: who participated in earlier discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Civil Conflict

Okay, boys and girls, three years after the last AfD for this thing closed as "no consensus", don't you think it's about time we revisited the status of this article? To get you up to speed with everything that's happened since the last AfD, the coach who unilaterally created the trophy has since been fired, no one even knows where the trophy is anymore, and now BOTH teams are agreeing that this never really was a "rivalry" of any kind. I reiterate what I said at the last AfD, I think the whole thing is worth a redirect and a paragraph at the Bob Diaco article explaining the whole episode, but nothing more then that. Thoughts? Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a new AfD discussion is warranted. Three years of time has further clarified that this was never a real rivalry. And with Diaco out, I doubt that either school ever acknowledges this "rivalry" again. Ostealthy (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
If anything shouldn't the "rivalry" stuff be removed and this stuff merged to the Diaco article? I mean the sources indicate that this is significant (notice I didn't say notable) in regards to Diaco's career, not the two schools.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The "Civil Conflict" might have received enough media attention - albeit in the form of ridicule - for it to be included somewhere. Perhaps as a standalone that no longer casts itself as a running rivalry, with the tables and the rest, but just as a summary of its inception, reception (such as it was) and quick demise. Or - yeah, maybe put it into Diaco and make this a redirect. JohnInDC (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with removing the rivalry stuff, but there was still significant national coverage in 2017. The name Civil Conflict (more commonly ConFLiCT) seems to have stuck in some form or another. I will say it even seems like the schools' fan bases disagreement on whether its a rivalry has started a sort of budding rivalry in its own right. Who knows where it will go from here, still too soon to tell in my opinion. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in discussion.

I have asked for a discussion on standardizing the NFL draft lists at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#NFL draft standardization I also have noticed a redundancy in their format. Template:Cfb link would be very handy in this instance. Please comment there.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

CFB stadium infobox capacities

After noticing inconsistency in the ordering (chrono order vs. reverse chrono vs. current capacity only) in the historical capacities listings in various college football stadium article infoboxes, I was preparing to come here and lobby for a standard to be set, but I reviewed the Template:Infobox venue docs and noted capacity seems intended to only be a single value, or alternately, multiple values for different configurations, but not multiple entries for historical values. I've modified Jordan-Hare Stadium to the include only the current capacity and moved the historical listing to a table in the article body in the bottom of the History section. It would be nice if the project could reach a consensus on the proper handling for the infobox capacity and stadium infoboxes can be standardized. Thanks for any input. AUTiger » talk 04:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Autiger: your edit on Jordan-Hare Stadium seems reasonable to me. But we should probably reach some consensus at Template talk:Infobox venue or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Event Venues or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports or somewhere that involves the others relevant sports WikiProjects, as this isn't a college football-specific issue. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 season articles

I have began creating the remaining FCS teams that do not already have an article for 2018. User:Onel5969 has redirected 2018 Saint Francis Red Flash football team and 2018 Sacred Heart Pioneers football team back to their main team pages twice stating Wikipedia:NSEASONS but those are the only 2 teams they have done it to. But every FCS team has had a page for about the last 8 years now. With schedules now known I don't see why pages can't be created to be expanded on between now and the start of the season. I don't want to start an edit war but I also don't see why these 2 should be singled out. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

They are not being singled out, but simply reviewed as part of the NPP. WP:OSE is not a valid rationale for keeping those pages. The pages of the other teams, as per WP:NSEASONS, should most likely be redirected as well. Onel5969 TT me 10:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
They absolutely are being singled out considering you haven’t done any of the other FCS pages or any of the other pages from past years. Do you propose redirecting all upcoming season articles? Or previous years article you don’t deem important? You would be undoing years of work. We as a community of college football editors need to come to a consensus before onel5969 does some real damage. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
While there is no SNG establishing a presumption of notability for college football seasons, past AfD practice provides some guidance. That practice is collected at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Single season notability discussion library. From that history, we see the following: (i) AfDs have been successful on occasion (though not always) when directed at Division II, Division III, and NAIA team/season articles; (ii) AfDs have never been a successful when directed at a Division I FBS team/season articles; and (iii) AfDs have typically been unsucessful when directed at Division I FCS team/season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've always been an advocate that all D1 football season articles are notable. Many AfDs over the years have agreed. Mjs32193 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the Saint Francis article and another editor did the same for the Sacred Heart article. Onel5969,, if you think a lot of college football season articles aren't notable, the way to go about it isn't cherry picking a couple and redirecting them. A better way would be to start a discussion here, so that we can come up with a systemic way to alter our approach, if need be. Citing WP:OSE in this context undermines consistency and parallelism. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There actually is a systematic approach, it's called Wikipedia notability guidelines, as per WP:NSEASONS, which none of the above editors has addressed. If you look at the AfD discussions, most either meet that guideline (either being a notable power 5 conference, or having a significant season (ranking, title, bowl appearance, etc.) or the AfD was about something other than that, e.g. the deletion rational was WP:TOOSOON). Again, there was no cherry-picking, not sure why that is so difficult a concept to grasp, but there it is - these came up under NPP, that's not cherry-picking, that's simple process. Neither of these articles consists of mostly prose, but rather simple stats (see WP:NOTDIR). Neither of these articles is about a season which ended in a national championship (at any level). Neither of these articles is about a season which ended in a post-season appearance. Neither of these articles is about a program which could be considered elite in the sport. So rather than WP:ILIKEIT arguments like "I've always been an advocate that all D1 football season articles are notable", it would be nice if the discussion actually addressed guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 02:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Onel5969: WP:NSEASONS (like NSPORTS as a whole) is an inclusionary guideline, not an exclusionary one. Indeed, the introductory language of NSPORTS explicitly states: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Moreover, you are misstating the facts. The past AfDs reference above do not generally involve Power 5 conferences, ranked teams, title-winning teams, bowl seasons, or TOOSOON. To the contrary, they reflect a fairly broad consensus that Division I seasons generate sufficient coverage to support standalone team/season articles. Compare 2015 Penn (Division I FCS), 2004 Arkansas State (Division I FCS), 2013 Elon (Division I FCS), 2009 Liberty (Division I FCS), 1899 VMI (current Division I FCS), 2001 North Dakota (Division I FCS - this one was a championship season, but the others are not), 1974 Boston U (Division II). Cbl62 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for making my point Cbl62... most of those examples meet the parameters as set forth in WP:NSEASONS (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 North Dakota Fighting Sioux football team. The others are circular reasoning, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1974 Boston University Terriers football team, which quotes not a single WP policy, but rather refers to "College football seasons are commonly accepted on Wikipedia", or "Consensus is that individual college football seasons are notable" (disregarding WP policy), etc. Might I suggest you please read WP:NSEASONS. But articles such as 1974 Boston University Terriers football team do not, like the 2 articles in question in this discussion, consist of mostly stats, but have citable prose. If either of these two articles had consisted of mostly citable prose, I would have simply clicked, "reviewed" and moved on. As they exist, they do not meet guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 03:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
We know that Division I seasons are notable because we know that the sources are out there, or in the case of 2018 articles, surely will be out there later this year. Take these to AfD if you must. Everyone active here is going to vote keep. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, thanks for making my point since you don't address the issues. If these have enough coverage to satisfy GNG, then flesh them out so that they are not simply stats pages. Why do you have such an issue with WP guidelines? Onel5969 TT me 03:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I have an issue with interpretations of the guidelines that don't reflect common sense and don't serve the development of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Onel: You are correct that the articles need to be improved with more prose, though that will (hopefully) come with time as the seasons unfold. However, your analysis is wrong in two key respects. First, you incorrectly assume that a season must satisfy NSEASONS to have a stand-alone article. To the contrary, the introductory language of NSEASONS/NSPORT (quoted above in my prior comment) makes clear that football team/seasons can also be included if they satisfy GNG. (I've actually never heard of the Saint Francis or Sacred Heart football programs, so I can't say for sure whether these teams receive sufficient coverage to support team/season articles. But past precedent suggest that Division I programs likely will pass muster.) Second, your assertion that "most of those seasons" that I linked meet NSEASONS is incorrect. In fact, only one in seven (2001 North Dakota) meets NSEASONS. One out seven does not constitute "most". Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1939 Nebraska vs. Kansas State football game

An AfD has opened for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1939 Nebraska vs. Kansas State football game. It once again raises the question as to what standards should apply for the creation of stand-alone articles on regular season football games. If you have views on the subject, fell free to comment there. Cbl62 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958)

User:UW Dawgs and I have disagreement regarding the naming of List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958). He supports the article titled as is. I feel this current title in an anachronism since the name "Pac-12 Conference" did not come into use until 2011. I believe the article should be title List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings, which reflects the conference name at the time. Technically the Pacific Coast Conference dissolved in June 1959, but the Pac-12 Conference claims the Pacific Coast Conference's history as its own. Nonetheless, I think that technicality is immaterial with regard with the name of this article. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The inconsistencies bother me. If we are going to argue that past PCC articles are better known as Pac-12, then what is the argument for included templates like Template:1916 PCC football standings to show "1916 PCC football standings" instead of "1916 Pac-12 football standings"? And do we retroactively rename all Pac-10 articles as Pac-12? Would like to hear UW Dawgs's perspective. Remember, we can always have redirects for alternative names, whatever the main name we end up choosing.—Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the article should be named with what the conference was called at the time and a redirect should be created with its current name, just like Bagumba says. This is pretty much what we do in other cases such as this. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The narrow focus on this article remains misplaced. We broadly use the contemporary (or final) name for article titles while aggregating the component eras into sections, ex List of Big Eight Conference football standings.
Regardless, the PCC-era content within the Pac-12 standings article has been stable since 05:44, 23 November 2015 when the article was similarly titled "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings" and the PCC-era section was a peer to its sibling eras:
* PCC standings (1916–1958)
* AAWU standings (1959–1967)
* Pacific-8 football standings (1968–1977)
* Pacific-10 standings (1978–2010)
* Pacific-12 standings (2011–present)
The single article was recently split into two articles (1916–1958 and 1959–present) by me per Cat norms, due to technical limitation re display of templates. Those two article groupings seemed reasonable to me, rather than (1916–1967) and (1968–present) where PCC-era could have remained paired with one or more of its sibling eras such as AAWU.
The Pac-12 claims all aspects of the PCC-era within their records as reported in their publications (annual standings, Heisman voting, All-Americans, Col HOF inductions, AP/Coaches' poll, Idaho and Montana H2H series results where neither team was a member of the later 1959–1968 AAWU, etc) 2017 Football Media Guide, pp. 81–113 with identical inclusive treatment seen within the 2017-18 Men's Baskeball Media Guide.
All aspects of our 1915/16-present PCC-era content follows this inclusive view by placement within the our various Pac-12 Conference articles, such as List of Pac-12 Conference champions, Pac-12 Conference men's basketball, Template:Pac-12 Conference men's basketball navbox, Template:Pac-12 Conference football navbox, List of Pac-12 Conference football champions, Pac-12 Conference football statistics, List of All-Pac-12 Conference football teams, etc.
There is currently no Category:Pacific Coast Conference in which to host such the proposed article, for the plain reason that all PCC-era content is already, appropriately within Category:Pac-12 Conference. This proposal would seemingly create our very first "PCC some specific topic" article with the driver being wiki render limitations rather content accuracy.
This article contains the PCC-era of the Pac-12 standings and the formating makes that clear (CE welcome). If necessary, we can change the split to (1916–1967) to make this even more overt. TL/DR - Need to first establish that the PCC is not the Pac-12 in direct conflict with it's published view and our LT treatment, and then "correct" all of our PCC-era content to reflect that. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, I understand that a technical limitation with the template rendering was the impetus for the article split, but that technicality does not override our naming conventions. I think the split at 1958/1959, as you have done, makes the most sense given the organizational change that occurred then. But even if you move the split to 1967/1968, "Pac-12" in the name would still be an inapt anachronism because that term did not come into use until 2011. You'd have to name the article List of Athletic Association of Western Universities football standings (1916–1967), which could be rather confusing. Category:Pac-12 Conference football is perfectly suitable to host List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings, just as Category:Washington Huskies football seasons is suitable to host 1919 Washington Sun Dodgers football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Following your lead, that would clearly be the List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1967) with sections for PCC-era and AAWU-era. That reasonable treatment directly aligns the original article's LT treatment, all of our other Pac-12 articles, the Pac-12's view, and doesn't create a forked "PCC some topic" article. So let's move the AAWU content into the article, update the title, and be done with it. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
No that doesn't following my lead. "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1967)" is an anachronism. The proper course of action to rename the article to List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings. Two others editors have expressed support for that view. I'm happy to wait for others to weigh in. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You still seem to be trying to create our first stand-alone PCC article, while I'm trying to convey that it's PCC-era (and AAWU-era, etc) content in 1 of 2 cross-linked Pac-12 standings articles, done in a manner consistent with our long-standing global treatment. In hindsight, I could have initially included the AAWU-era content (or chosen any other arbitrary calendar year such as 1916–19X0) to render this attempted distinction moot. They are the PCC-era standings of the Pac-12 conference. This argument rests solely on the content grouping as currently implemented. Changing the grouping/split in any manner removes the argument. So again, let's change the content split to make this even more clear to the reader, remain consistent, and move on. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
First? What about Pacific Coast Conference?. Again changing the split to 1967/1968 drives the article to be renamed to List of Athletic Association of Western Universities football standings (1916–1967) or something of the sort, but nothing with "Pac-12" in it. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are consistently proposing our very first "PCC some specific topic" article as repeatedly stated. This is a Pac-12 article with era-specific subsection(s), has a peer (List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present)) which follows our "Pac-12" naming convention while using era-specific subsections, and it should logically follow our existing Pac-12 article naming conventions since it renders Pac-12 content. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, okay, I suppose this is the first "PCC some specific topic" article. But we have plenty of other "[old, expired name for some entity] some specific topic" articles, e.g. 1976 Pacific Coast Athletic Association Men's Basketball Tournament, 1910 USC Methodists football team, History of the Chicago Cardinals. We also have a host of "PCC some specific topic" categories, e.g. Category:1916 Pacific Coast Conference football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. None of these newest examples are controversial or even relevant to the logical labeling of dual articles originating from a split of a single article, as necessitated by wiki limitations. Your offered rationale and examples would have us split USC Trojans football into USC Methodists football and USC Trojans football (1914–present), if wiki limitations required a split. This would of course also ignore obvious, logical, and consistent naming structures around all aspects of "USC football," just as you wish to do in the case of the Pac-12 football. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, the history of the article's split and the reason for the split (technical limitations) have no bearing on how the article should be named. The only things that matter are 1) the subject of the article as it now stands and 2) the relevant naming conventions. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, again. Every related category and article including this article's direct sibling use Pac-12 in the aricle title, except for the lone Pacific Coast Conference. 1) The subject of this article is Pac-12 standings. 2) We have a clear naming convention for Pac-12 articles. Your preference forks this treatment, your offered examples are clearly not equivalent, and your offered rationale creates inconsistencies. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, can you explain then why 1919 Washington Sun Dodgers football team is titled as it is? The subject of that article is one season in the history of Washington Huskies football program. We have a clear naming convention for Washington Huskies articles. Do we have an inconsistent, forked treatment there? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

UW Dawgs and I appear to be at in impasse about the relevance of this article's history, namely it creation from a subdivision of another article, on how it should be titled. @Bagumba: @X96lee15: perhaps you could each address that point specifically? Do any others care to comment on this item? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, the very recent editing history and technical origins remain irrelevant. We have an established naming convention and treatment both local to all Pac-12 content and global to the relevant parent cat of this specific article, which to date you have refused to acknowlege, dispute, or reference WP:NAMINGCRITERIA while repeatedly introducing straw men of non-controversial and demonstrably unrelated articles. This specific article is indisputably Pac-12 content, as seen in the LT treatment, the current treatment, and the supporting citations as referenced above. There are five such historical eras referenced within our Pac-12 articles as seen consistently throughout articles within the Pac-12 parent category, yet you remain insistent to elevate this single era above the rest within only this lone, sibling article. As a good faith "solution," I have proposed including the 2nd, AAWU-era from the sibling article to create a pair of era-specific sections (treatment which is identical to its sibling article which currently renders four eras and could be reduced to three eras) to make it even more clear to the reader and your response was to dispute it yet again with another obviously inappropriate straw man article name of List of Athletic Association of Western Universities football standings (1916–1967). UW Dawgs (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Use "List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings" Having seen the arguments, none of these are perfect solutions, so I didn't rule out one or the other just because it was imperfect. My main factor in choosing not to have Pac-12 in the name is that we do not have a current convention to retroactively rename pages just because of a name change. For example, we did not go back and rename 2010 Pacific-10 Conference football season. For teams, the practice since at least 2010 has been to name season articles based on the team's name at the time, and it was reaffirmed in 2015. I saw the argument that it was a technical limitation that forced List of Pac-12 Conference football standings to be split, so it should not force a name change to PCC. However, readers do not know or care why a split took place, all they know is that there are two articles now. It just seems strange to name the PCC standings as "Pac-12" when all the transcluded boxes say "19XX PCC football standings". If 1958 PCC football season was created, 1958 Pac-12 football season would be a redirect only—the standings should not be treated any differently. Finally, I would not support expanding to List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1967). For the readers benefit, we should keep as many years as reasonably possible on the latest standings list. We shouldn't expand the older list primarily because of a preferred title by editors.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting again after both views had been accurately presented.
These types of season list articles make use of era-sections when necessitated to group standings within eras. However, all of the existing articles reflect the current (or final) name in their article naming conventions without controvery. That convention would be narrowly overturned only for this lone sibling article. See the numerous articles which render era-specific sections and templates at the top of article, where that era content does not align with article's name:
Jweiss11 continues to refuse to acknowlege that this is unambiguously Pac-12 content, despite our LT project-wide treatment and citations. That's the root of their dispute and the apparent cause of the numerous straw men. These stable article conventions show clear and consistent behavior, which we now might overturn for a lone sibling article, without even making reference to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy. That wiki policy invokes:
  • Recognizability
  • Naturalness
  • Precision
  • Conciseness
  • Consistency
The existing naming convention is clearly superior in at least 4 of 5 policy criteria, with "conciseness" being a wash. Again, thank you for your considered reply, above. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, you are misusing the notion of "straw man". I'm not arguing against a position you're not holding. Your argument is that the whole run of Pac-12 standings templates starting in 1916 is inherently "Pac-12" and that when you subdivide them into different articles, each of them should retain Pac-12 in their title, even if that article terminates at point in history before the name "Pac-12" came into use. The problem is that this a contravention of how we treat articles for entities that have changed names over time. If the subject of an article is an entity—in its totality—that still exists at present, then the article's title reflects the subject's current name, e.g. Miami RedHawks football. But when we subdivide that topic and create an article whose subject terminates at some point in history, then the article's title reflects the subject's name at that termination point, e.g. 1943 Miami Redskins football team. This is what we do for thousands of other articles and categories. My analogies to some of these other articles and categories are certain not straw men. They are exercises intended to drive that point home to you. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be working. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Repeatedly referencing the non-controversial, long-standing naming convention of stand-alone YYYY team articles (of which I have both created and corrected, many) and then conflating that as equivalent with era sections of conference articles is clearly a straw man -done while refusing to acknowledge the exising naming convention, refusing to directly acknowledge the content as Pac-12, refusing to acknowledge your argument and chosen examples would have us split USC Trojans football into USC Methodists football and USC Trojans football (1914–present), and refusing to reference WP:NAMINGCRITERIA policy. Twisting non-controversial content to argue for a single, unprecendented, and inconsistent change is a transparent straw man tactic. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
USC Trojans football should always remain intact in some form, but yes, History of USC Methodists football and History of USC Trojans football (1914–present) would be the proper names for the history articles if they needed to be split, just like we have History of the Chicago Cardinals. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
And you just did it again, while dodging a policy-based argument, not acknowledging our global naming conventions, and not acknowleging the Pac-12 nature of the content. We have (had) Thing 1 with Era 1, Era 2, Era 3, Era 4, and Era 5 sections. Your stated argument is an article split elevates the Era into the title, rather than persisting as Thing 1 (XXXX-YYYY) with an Era 1 section and Thing 1 (YYYY-present) with Era 2, Era 3, Era 4, and Era 5 sections. You're welcome to your view, but please don't pretend this is anything more than an invented distraction which is repeatedly failing to support your argument. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Imagine that the history section of Miami RedHawks football was its own article, History of Miami RedHawks football. Then that article go too big, so it had to be broken up. The choice was made that one of the new articles would be for the "Early history (1888–1968)" section of the main article. How would you title that article? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
And yet another pivot. You appear very invested in your proposed fork, yet won't acknowlege any aspects of our current treatment. Why won't you 1) acknowlege that PCC content is an era of the Pac-12 (as seen throughout our treatment and cites), 2) that our Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure and those articles render PCC-era content, and 3) use those facts to offer a policy-based argument for your proposed fork? UW Dawgs (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Consider that USC Methodists football, 1888–1910 was indeed an article before it was broken up into individual season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This is literally your worst analog to date, as each of the 21 ensuring articles retained exactly their prior naming convention (Category:USC Trojans football seasons) while you are now actively arguing directly against retaining an established naming convention. So I ask, yet again. 1), 2), and 3), will you drop the straw men and now pivot to directly respond on point? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
What happened to the 21 articles after the breakup isn't what's relevant in this case. What's relevant is that USC Methodists football, 1888–1910 carried the old "Methodists" name because that's what USC football was called at the time. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I ask, yet again. 1), 2), and 3), will you drop the straw men and now pivot to directly respond on point? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There are no straw men for me to drop. If you ask me a clear question, I will answer it. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Paste: Why won't you 1) acknowlege that PCC content is an era of the Pac-12 (as seen throughout our treatment and cites), 2) that our Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure and those articles render PCC-era content, and 3) use those facts to offer a policy-based argument for your proposed fork? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
1) PCC is indeed an era of Pac-12. I have never denied that. I noted that business with the different charter between the PCC and what is now the Pac-12, but granted that it was not relevant here. 2) Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure—yes indeed they do, but there's nothing unique about the Pac-12 there. Our consistent naming structure is built to reflect old names where appropriate. 3) Naturalness, consistency, precision, and conciseness point to naming the article List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings. "Pacific Coast Conference" is less recognizable than "Pac-12", but the relationship there is more or less the same as "USC Methodists" vs. "USC Trojans", "Western Conference" vs. "Big Ten Conference", and countless other analogs. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed fork is clearly against wiki policy

Thank you for finally, directly responding and actively affirming our project-wide consensus.

We have interlinked sibling articles of List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958) and List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present) per Category norms in every respect.

The above proposal is to fork this pair into List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings which is already a LT redirect and List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1959–present) by renaming the former article against our consensus treatment seen in both directly-related categories.

Policy at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA informs on good article naming conventions:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. College football fans/readers will universally recognize the Pac-12 standings content by continued use of current name of "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958)." In your words, "PCC is indeed an era of Pac-12." And readers are indisputably more likely to recognize the current and correct 'Pac-12' name than they are to even be aware of the 'PCC' which has been in disuse for 60 years. This is clear and unambiguous.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. It is unreasonable to argue that readers are likely to search via 'Pacific Coast Conference' when the PCC name has been in disuse for 60 years and is merely one of four former names. Conversely, all searches and links to articles for Pac-12 content agnostic of the 5 eras currently point to 'Pac-12' titled articles including this specific pair. There are zero topic-specific PCC articles to date and that is unlikely to change per consensus to aggregate our Pac-12 content under 'Pac-12' titled articles, so search and link behavior of this specific article pair already appropriate exists exclusively under 'Pac-12' and clearly breaks upon forking to 'PCC.' This is overwhelming.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "List of Pac-12 Conference football standings (1916–1958)" correctly and unambiguously identifies this article as both Pac-12 standings and from a specific, prior era dating from the early to mid 1900s. "Pacific Coast Conferences football standings" fails to identify the content as Pac-12 at all, fails to describe it as being from a specific era of any sort, and breaks the intuitive and conveyed relationship to its linked sibling article. Your words, "PCC is indeed an era of Pac-12," directly confirm the omission of 'Pac-12' creates confusion where none currently exists -throughout any other Pac-12 article or this pair of standings.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. While the two text lengths might be a push, the current article by use of the appended " (1916–1958)" callout clearly helps to directly identify the subject (regardless of Pac-12 vs PCC) and also to distinguish the subject from its sibling article. The proposed title fork does the exact opposite, both failing to identify the subject of Pac-12 standings and needlessly distinguishes it from like-subjects, specifically including its cross-linked sibling article.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. The article is about an era of Pac-12 and football standings. The current article name is universally in use, both broadly in all Pac-12 content (Category:Pac-12 Conference) and narrowly within every 'List of XYZ football standings' articles per (Category:NCAA Division I FBS football standings) which exclusively uses the the current/final conference name in titles. The proposed fork literally has no peers of any kind in the either cat. In your exact words, "Pac-12 topic articles currently have a consistent naming structure—yes indeed they do." This is unambiguous.

As the proposal is decisively against policy, and you are now in stated agreement with consensus that Pac-12 content is correctly described by the current article name, there is no policy basis to support your proposed article fork. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, both titles are imperfect. For "Pac-12", I'd say it is not consistent, because we generally use the name that was prevalent at the time. Would you use the title 1958 PCC football season or 1958 Pac-12 football season? To be consistent with the names of team season articles, we'd use "PCC".—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone other than UW Dawgs objects, shall we move forward and rename to List of Pacific Coast Conference football standings? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Will you be offering a policy argument before your fork goes to RFC? UW Dawgs (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I, and others here, already have. RFC if you must. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The policy is simply WP:CONSENSUS. Any long-time editor has felt like they were the lone voice of reason at one point or another. We just have to accept when nobody will agree with us and move on.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is the relevant policy. And it took an absurd amount of effort to get the forker to even reference that policy[3] and their effort was cursory at best. So yes, RFC will follow, of course. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
UW Dawgs, we spent a lot of time and effort, unsuccessfully, trying to get to you see obvious analogs with other articles that carry old names like 1919 Washington Sun Dodgers football team. Please open the RFC when you see fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

AD infobox naming conventions

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox college coach#Administrative career (AD unless noted) in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 team page schedules

What should the policy be on converting the team schedules on 2018 team articles to the new template? I wouldn't mind doing it, since I view the new schedule template to be far superior to the old one, but I just want some sort of confirmation before I go around and change all of them.

It's also worth noting that most of the 2018 articles I created were with the new template, listed below are a few from FBS and a few from FCS.

If I can get several users to give me the go-ahead, I can begin converting them. PCN02WPS 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There is as automated process to make the conversion. Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21#Update on new CFB schedule templates). User:Frietjes is the person to consult on technical issues here. I'm not sure that this process is bug-free though, as you can see the poll links in the footer did not convert properly. I tried this out on 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team and 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team a few weeks back. We need to convert all 11,000+ instances of the old templates to the new templates, so that we can resolve the hanging style fork here and delete the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Personally as someone who makes a lot of updates and creates a majority of the season articles, I can't stand that new template. It's so much easier if each field has their own line. When it is set up like this 

{{CFB schedule | time = y | opprank = y | rank = y | tv = y | attend = y 
| rankyear = 2017 | poll = AP | timezone = Central
| September 2 | 7:00 p.m. |v| #3 [[2017 Florida State Seminoles football team|Florida State]] | 1 | [[Mercedes-Benz Stadium]] | [[Atlanta|Atlanta, GA]] ([[Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game]]) | [[Saturday Night Football|ABC]] | W 24−7 | 76,330
| September 9 | 2:30 p.m. | | [[2017 Fresno State Bulldogs football team|Fresno State]]<ncg> | 1 | [[Bryant–Denny Stadium]] | [[Tuscaloosa, Alabama|Tuscaloosa, AL]] | [[ESPN College Football|ESPN2]] | W 41−10 | 101,127
| October 14  | 6:15 p.m. | | [[2017 Arkansas Razorbacks football team|Arkansas]]<hc> | 1 | Bryant–Denny Stadium | Tuscaloosa, AL | ESPN | W 41–9 | 101,821
| November 25 | 2:30 p.m. |@| #6 [[2017 Auburn Tigers football team|Auburn]] | 1 | [[Jordan–Hare Stadium]] | [[Auburn, Alabama|Auburn, AL]] ([[Iron Bowl]]) | CBS | L 14–26 | 87,451
}}


it can be hard to find where to add results. It's far too clunky. It is so much easier when each field has it's own line.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)



Bsuorangecrush, I agree with you on each field having its own line.  Makes things much easier to parse and update.  And I'm in favor of using the version of the new templates that uses named parameters.  See 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team for an example.  Does that work for you? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That format seems fine. The other format is terrible. I would actually be less likely to make updates if all pages were changed to that format.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bsuorangecrush: – as a frequent article creator, what is it that you don't like about the template? After using it for several articles, I can assert that it is far easier to create articles as it eliminates the monotonous and repetitive copy-pasting that is necessary when using the old template, and it also reduces greatly the time required to create such an article.
Also – @Jweiss11:, can I see what those "named parameters" might look like in the code, just out of curiosity? PCN02WPS 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the fields are named. When one goes to update they can easily enter data in the wrong field. It is so much easier to see it say "score=" or "attend=" rather that just " |   |   |  "  Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The beauty of the new template is that it accommodates both named and unnamed parameters.  I find the unnamed parameters much easier, but for those who prefer named parameters, it can be done that way as well. Output is identical. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, output is identical and that is good. But User:PCN02WPS asked "If I can get several users to give me the go-ahead, I can begin converting them." I would rather them not be converted. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS:, please see 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team for an example with named parameters.  Jweiss11 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Both versions of the new template (named and unnamed template parameters) are acceptable.  Each user is free to use whichever format he/she finds preferable. What should not be used is the old template. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, you should probably tell that the editors who don't look at this talk page and who created scores of 2018 articles in recent weeks using the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: that being said, would it be alright for me to convert some of the dozens of 2018 old-template articles to the new template?
Also, @Jweiss11 and Bsuorangecrush: I can't see how the new template with named parameters offers any benefit over the old template. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point of the new template to eliminate the "q-and-a" that had to be completed for every game on a team's schedule? At a glance, the 1997 Michigan schedule's code looks almost the same to the old template.
One last thing, in response to Bsuorangecrush's argument that it's hard to find where to add results; I agree if you format it as one giant block of text as you did in the example. In my opinion, it's much, much easier to navigate if you give each game its own line, like below. Do it a few times and you can learn pretty quickly where each field's information should be placed; any doubts could be easily solved with a simple edit preview and a correction if necessary.


Example



{{CFB schedule | time = y | opprank = y | rank = y | tv = y | attend = y 
| rankyear = 2017 | poll = AP | timezone = Central

| September 2 | 7:00 p.m. |v| #3 [[2017 Florida State Seminoles football team|Florida State]] | 1 | [[Mercedes-Benz Stadium]] | [[Atlanta|Atlanta, GA]] ([[Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game]]) | [[Saturday Night Football|ABC]] | W 24−7 | 76,330

| September 9 | 2:30 p.m. | | [[2017 Fresno State Bulldogs football team|Fresno State]]<ncg> | 1 | [[Bryant–Denny Stadium]] | [[Tuscaloosa, Alabama|Tuscaloosa, AL]] | [[ESPN College Football|ESPN2]] | W 41−10 | 101,127

| October 14  | 6:15 p.m. | | [[2017 Arkansas Razorbacks football team|Arkansas]]<hc> | 1 | Bryant–Denny Stadium | Tuscaloosa, AL | ESPN | W 41–9 | 101,821

| November 25 | 2:30 p.m. |@| #6 [[2017 Auburn Tigers football team|Auburn]] | 1 | [[Jordan–Hare Stadium]] | [[Auburn, Alabama|Auburn, AL]] ([[Iron Bowl]]) | CBS | L 14–26 | 87,451
}}



In my opinion, the above example demonstrates that it's not all that hard to find where to put a certain piece of information if you take a couple seconds and look; after doing this a few times, my experience has shown that the more you do it, the easier it becomes. PCN02WPS 00:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO, you offer to convert manually 2018 season articles using the old template to the new template is a good one that should be encouraged. Cbl62 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


PCN02WPS, the point of the new template was to remove the necessity of having turn off certain fields in every row of the table when they are not applicable.  Unnamed parameters are a huge mistake for long-term stability and development. In your unnamed parameter example above, the gamename field (e.g. "Iron Bowl" is in the wrong place).  Things like that are much harder to fix in an unnamed parameter / mixed text scenario than they would be when each field is clearly named and delineated. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Both are acceptable; that is the compromise that was settled upon after much debate. PCN02WPS is free to decide which they prefer. Cbl62 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Cbl, that's a huge waste of time and may further augment the hanging style fork here.  The resolution here is to debug the conversion process and run it via bot on all 11,000 instances of the old template to convert them to the new with named parameters.  Perhaps you would like take the lead on that? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


This type of bot-driven conversion is not an area of my personal expertise. When you asked about this several months ago, Frietjes gave you instructions on how to initiate the process.  Have you tried executing those instructions? Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Editors are free, I guess, to create new tables using unnamed parameters--although those should be converted to named parameters by an automated process.  It is not, whoever, acceptable to take the old templates with named parameters and convert them to new templates with unnamed parameters. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The compromise reached is that each user can decide whether to use named or unnamed parameters.  There is no decree that everything must be converted ultimately to named parameters. Cbl62 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Cbl62, as I explained above in this thread, I've run the conversion process manually on two articles, but it still needs to be debugged, because the poll fields in the footer aren't converting properly.  The gamename fields also aren't rendering in the correct spots--they should be rendering in the opponent column, not the site column, but that's not a function of the conversion.  That's a function of the new template itself. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So why don't you try to sort that out with Frietjes? Cbl62 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Because I've been busy working on other things.  Perhaps the person who engineered this problem should be one to sort it out with Frietjes and resolve it? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your ongoing hostility on this issue is wholly unproductive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile at all.  I'm speaking honestly and precisely about what has developed.  What would be very helpful would be for you take responsibility for your advocacy and action on this matter.  Jweiss11 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You are free to use named parameters, and others are free to use unnamed parameters. Instead of trolling, maybe you should try to ask Frietjes (politely, I'd suggest) for help in the conversion. Cbl62 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Instead of asserting false charges like "trolling", you should refocus on yourself and take some responsibility for actions on this subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I take pride in my work here.  Focus on your own work, and please stop trolling. Cbl62 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You do a lot of great work here.  But you've been woefully negligent on this template subject.  Please also stop issuing false statements about other editors.  Lying about others is not something anyone should take pride in. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, the introduction of the new template and, in particular, the unnamed parameters option has been a huge success.  It allows schedule charts to be created with great ease and speed and has enabled the speedy creation of hundreds of schedule templates in that past six months, greatly reducing the backlog.  I do take pride in that.  Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You're still failing to own up to your principal role in engineering the hanging template fork we have now, while dismissing concerns about it throughout the process and failing to take measures to resolve it. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 
@Cbl62 and Jweiss11: Several things: Jweiss, your comment about "Iron Bowl" being in the wrong place should be taken up with User:Bsuorangecrush, as I copied the block of text in his example and re-formatted it. Additionally Jweiss, correct me if I am mistaken, but I feel as if you are being overly defensive over an opinion that may not make much sense. My suggestion was just to convert the old templates (which have been explicitly stated by several users as being not what we want) to the new template. I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have a history of blindly clinging to a particular, very specific opinion about how templates should operate, and then verbally degrading anyone who speaks to the contrary (e.g. "woefully negligent"; "Lying about others is not something anyone should take pride in"; etc.). I see no reason why editors shouldn't be free to convert to whichever version of the template they prefer (named vs. unnamed); as Cbl stated, "There is no decree that everything must be converted ultimately to named parameters". I am simply trying to help in this transition, and if my usage of unnamed-parameter templates is, as you stated, "a huge waste of time", I am willing to do the 2018 conversions myself, perhaps with the help of Cbl. Thanks, PCN02WPS 03:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, the gamename placement is not an issue to be taken up specifically with Bsuorangecrush.  In developing the new templates, we decided that the gamename field made more sense as a parenthetical in the opponent field, not the site field.  Everyone involved agreed on this.  Unfortunately, this has not been implemented properly in the new templates.  Again, if you want to convert to the new templates with named parameters, please go for it, although it would be most efficient to use an automated process.  What I don't want to see is the clear delineation of named parameters in the old templates destroyed in the conversion.  Finally, your analysis of the conflict between Cbl62 and me is inverted ethically.  Cbl issued a false statement about me.  I admonished him not to do so.  Apparently, this is degrading on my part? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And irrespective of the placement, it's not acceptable for two discrete data points (e.g. site and gamename) to be bunched together as one text field when they are two distinct fields in the old templates.  This is very sloppy and a step backwards from the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


You are not the Czar of Wikipedia, JW.  If PNC02WPS wishes to help by converting the 2018 schedules to the new template, they are free to do so using either named or unnamed parameters.  You have no unilateral authority to direct otherwise. Moving the rivalry notations is simply easily remedied and is something with which I am happy to assist. Cbl62 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


You have no unilateral authority to direct anything on this matter either. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Exactly! I'm not the one trying to issue unilateral directives to PCN02WPS. Cbl62 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

But you are issuing arguments of about what is and is not acceptable regarding the usage of these templates, as am I.  If I'm issuing directives, then so you are.  What you should be focused on is cleaning up the mess you made and not demanding that others (like me) do it for you. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I am merely reciting the consensus reached 6 months ago that both named and unnamed parameters are acceptable.  You, on the other hand, are trying to override the consensus and dictate that only named parameters are acceptable.  As for the mass conversion, you were the one from the outset concerned about that.  That was your pet project. You sought Frietjes' assistance in that regard, but (par for the course) you were pushy, and you didn't get all the technical help you hoped for. Don't cry to me, or try to shift blame, about the results of your own actions. I have never professed to be a programmer nor to have the ability to engage in bot-directed mass conversions. In the meantime, PCN and I will take a stab at doing some manual conversions. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss: My apologies, then, I suppose; I was unaware that the rivalry was moved to the team name field. I was merely trying to keep consistent with where it is placed in the old template. Furthermore, Jweiss, what was the false statement that Cbl issued? I was not only talking about the issue here, but also your "dust-up" with BrownHairedGirl, which I recently read. Finally, in your last comment, you stated that you believed that Cbl had made a mess; I find this not to be true, as here they were merely trying to offer me a clear, agreed-upon answer to my question. Cbl was also not demanding that others do "it" for him, whatever "it" may be; I volunteered to do these conversions by hand, myself, and just came here for permission. PCN02WPS 04:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, I'm not a programmer either.  You are the one who enlisted Frietjes' assistance to pump out a flawed version of the new template with no regard for converting and depreciating the old template.  You quite literally argued that it didn't matter that we had two sets of duplicate templates, even though User:Bagumba and others echoed my concerns there.  And here are you now, shirking your culpability in this mess while lying about others.  Jweiss11 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 Here's key exchange on that last point from January (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21:

Are you planning to planning to keep the old template or submit it for deletion? Fbdave (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)



So long as the output is the same, why not let individual editors decide which template works best for them? Maintaining two templates doesn't seem particularly burdensome of fraught with peril. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity and long-term stability, we should certainly not have the new template and the old set of templates co-existing for more than a short transition period. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We should be working to make the new one the best one, and migrate and deprecate the old one.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And we should make sure the niche editors who typically create the articles for upcoming seasons know they should be using a new template. Lizard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lizard, yes indeed. Deprecating the old templates and converting all tranclusions to the new template will be necessary. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Jweiss & Bagumba. We should only be using one uniform schedule template. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)



 PCN02WPS, the false statement by Cbl is the assertion that I am a "troll", which a person who deliberately posts off-topic or inflammatory content to derail a forum.  Everything I post here is in service of the project, to improve the encyclopedia.  I'm very concerned here that we are messing up a core structure of this part of the encyclopedia.  I'd be happy to talk with you about the "dust up" episode you referenced, but it's probably best not to discuss it further here as it would unnecessarily complicate this discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As for where Cbl demanded someone else (me) to clean up the flaws in the template he pushed through, please see his comment above, "So why don't you try to sort that out with Frietjes?" Jweiss11 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 The passage you quote proves my point, JW. You advocated deprecating the old template.  I am not here today to say we shouldn't do that.  The reason that effort got derailed is not because of any lapse on my part (as I've now said three time, I'm not a programmer). Rather, it got derailed because Frietjes wouldn't do it for you (after you tried to push that upon them) and instead gave you instructions on how to do it, and you dropped the ball.  If you want to do a mass conversion, go for it, but don't blame me for your own actions and inactions.  And BTW here's the definition of "trolling": "make a deliberately ... provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." Your aggressive pestering and baseless blame-laying, and your history of name-calling, making accusations of defamation, etc., and other conduct that led to your recent experience at ANI, can certainly create the appearance of fitting that definition. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't drop the ball on the conversions.  That's not my responsibility as I'm not the one who pushed through the new forking templates.  I did the best I could to point out problems as you pushed the new template freight train downhill.  What have you done to resolve the fork and make the conversions?  The response I want from you is to own up to your culpability and see to it that the problems you negligently engineered are resolved.  And please stop lying about me. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You did indeed drop the ball. Check the talk page history.  You were the one pushing for mass conversion. You began the process with Frietjes.  Frietjes gave you instructions (see diff), and you simply dropped the ball. Your attempt to shift the blame to me is bad form. Cbl62 (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The point you seem to keep missing is that that the conversions are a necessary, binding consequence of the creation of the new templates.  They aren't optional, despite that way you clear stated it in January and seem to still feel about it.  You engineered the new templates.  You should see that the necessary, binding consequences are met.  Now please clean the mess you orchestrated and stop blaming others and lying about them.  Jweiss11 (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


JW -- The point I have made repeatedly is this: I am not responsible for the mass bot-driven conversions. I never volunteered for that job. Nor was I tasked with that job. Nor do I have the technical know-how to do it even if I chose to do so. You, on the other hand, picked up that ball and then dropped it.  Now stop this nonsense and go to sleep -- it's 2 a.m. back east and I assume you need to work in the morning. Cbl62 (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Just going to butt in really quick; I'm most likely going to begin 2018 old→new template manual conversion tomorrow; if any editor wishes to convert any of my work from unnamed to named parameters, they may feel free to do so. Hopefully this argument will find a dignified end. PCN02WPS 05:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That incredibly counter productive.  Please do not destroy any named parameters.  I will have to revert any such changes.  You can convert to the name parameters even faster the with instructions linked above. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop acting like a dictator.  On the one hand, you complain about the slow conversion. Then you attack someone who seeks to help with the conversion.  Unnamed and named parameters are both acceptable.  If PCN02WPS is willing to help, he should be encouraged and thanked. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Destroying parameters is not acceptable.  You position continues to be incredibly negligent toward the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Converting to the new template is perfectly appropriate.  Your obstinate refusal to abide by the accepted compromise (i.e., that named and unnamed parameters can co-exist in the new template with both being acceptable) is what is problematic. Cbl62 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 CBl is now deleting named parameters in new templates.  Please see recent edits at 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team.  Can someone step in here and put a stop to this? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What I did in that case is to convert from the old template to the new template. That is entirely appropriate.  Your insistence that every schedule have named parameters is an attempt to renege on the compromise that was reached, i.e., that the new template be designed to accommodate dual syntax in which both named and unnamed parameters are acceptable. Cbl62 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you converted the new template with named parameters to the new template with unnamed parameters. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I mistakenly though 1901 Michigan was an old template. I was in error on that one and apologize, but converting old templates to new templates with unnamed parameters, as proposed by PCN02WPS, is wholly unobjectionable and appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Conversions can be made by adding {{subst:#invoke:CFB schedule/convert|subst| at the top of the table, before the {{CFB Schedule Start}} and }} to the bottom after the {{CFB Schedule End}}. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Although there are some problems in some cases with footer poll links andthe placement of the gamename field needs to be fixed.  Can we reengage Frietjes to fix those problems? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"Can we reengage Frietjes?" Re-engaging Frietjes is what I suggested that you do at the beginning of this discussion, but you ignored that and decided to launch an offensive blaming me for things wholly outside my area of expertise. Took a while, but you've finally come around. Please feel free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Jweiss, I have no plans to convert any named-parameter new templates, as they are perfectly functional. The only thing I will be replacing is old templates, and old templates only. PCN02WPS 06:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, can you please use the above instructions to convert them? Or wait until the whole thing is debugged and botted? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, I tested that code on the 2016 California Vulcans football team page, you can see the results. I can see no problems with this and, unless I come across a major bug (which I don't forsee), I will be proceeding forward using this method. PCN02WPS 06:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, check out the poll link in the footer.  It points to 2016 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings.  It should point to 2016 NCAA Division II football rankings. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, just fixed that, I've converted the following 2018 articles as tests, if you could take a look at these: California (PA), Mercyhurst. I tried to convert several NEC articles, but I got several bugs that prevented me from doing so. PCN02WPS 06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Just realized that the aforementioned bugs were entirely due to my error. @Jweiss11: could you take a look at the following converted 2018 articles? Bryant, Central Connecticut, Duquesne. PCN02WPS 06:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, there is no poll link at all displaying in footer of those last three examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I just took a look at the conversion of the Bryant page. That seems perfectly acceptable. It still has the fields named and doesn't just look like a confusing clump of data. I'm fine with this. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it too, but bear in mind that the new template was intentionally designed with dual syntax, allowing either named or unnamed parameters.  Cbl62 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: if you put in a rank in any "rank" field, or toggle on the "opprank" field, the poll link will display in the footer. This is demonstrated at 2018 Duquesne Dukes football team. @Bsuorangecrush and Cbl62: I'm going to continue conversions with this method, just due to time. Keep in mind that any manual conversions I do will be from old template → un-named parameters, but I don't forsee myself having to do this. Just thinking ahead here, unless anyone opposes, once 2018 is done I will most likely move back and convert 2017. PCN02WPS 16:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am greatly against changing the templates to the un-named parameters.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The unnamed parameters is already part of the new template. The template has dual syntax.  The dual syntax proposal was discussed at length and approved, and unnamed parameters have now been rolled out into hundreds of schedule charts already.  In creating schedule charts for season articles that have none, it is a huge time savings and will continue to be utilized. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 I think we're at the point where consensus has changed and we no longer have it for the unnamed parameters.  I'm prepared to RFC this if need be. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of unnamed parameters as part of the dual syntax in the new template has proven to be enormously successful, enabling the rollout in less than six months of more than 600 new schedule charts in articles previously lacking them. That's extraordinary progress by any measure! The main concern expressed was that editors would enter data in the wrong cell, resulting in charts that read out as error output.  That concern has proven to be unfounded, as I've found such errors in none of the 600+ new charts utilizing unnamed parameters.  Should your pique nevertheless move you to initiate an RFC to eliminate a function that has contributed enormously to Wikipedia's coverage of college football's history, well, that's on you. Cbl62 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


@Cbl62, Jweiss11,  and Bsuorangecrush: happy to say that all 2018 FBS and FCS articles have been converted to the new template. PCN02WPS 03:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, PCN! Cbl62 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


Poll fields


@PCN02WPS:.  Please my recent edits at 2018 Yale Bulldogs football team.  That is how the poll fields are intended to be set up.  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)



@Jweiss11: noted. Thank you, I'll correct the 2018 ones I've already converted. PCN02WPS 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Great.  Much appreciated. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Just an update: I've converted all teams in the Big Sky, Big South, CAA, Big Sky, Ivy League, and MEAC.

Looks pretty good from the few I've looked at.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Rivalry games in schedule


@Jweiss11, Cbl62,  and Bsuorangecrush: I have another small question - can we get a system for denoting rivalry games applied to team pages? From what I've seen, rivalry games are usually denoted in one of three ways: the name of the rivalry (Southwest Classic), or "rivalry", starting with either capital (Rivalry) and lowercase (rivalry). These are applied inconsistently across team pages and I'd be willing to convert the 2018 pages if we can come to a consensus about which to use.

Here's a few examples, taken from the Arkansas-Texas A&M game:



DateTimeOpponentSiteTVResultAttendance
 September 29   vs.  Texas A&M 
  

 September 29   vs.  Texas A&M 
  

 September 29   vs.  Texas A&M 
  

 September 29   vs.  Texas A&M  
   

 September 29   vs.  Texas A&M  
   



For what it's worth, I'd prefer (rivalry) next to the site name for all rivalry games, with a link to the appropriate rivalry game's page, but that's just my opinion. PCN02WPS 14:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)



Rivalry is not a proper noun, and its usage in a parenthetical in schedule charts should not be capitalized. It should be "(rivalry)".  As for the location of the parenthetical, the discussion earlier this year resulted in a consensus that it should appear next to the opponent's name, not next to the site.  This makes sense because the rivalry is with the opponent, not with the site. Accordingly, the fourth listed options is the correct one IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What would we do about bowl games and exhibition game names (see 2018 Drake Bulldogs football team)? Should those be treated the same as rivalries? PCN02WPS 15:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11 and Bsuorangecrush: would you two support if I were to change the rivalry denotations to the fourth example in the chart for all 2018 FBS/FCS articles? PCN02WPS 03:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no to the fourth example. I think it would look terrible to have it next to the team name. I'd vote for keeping it after the city.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that if the rivalry has a name it should be called by its name, many do not have names so in those cases keep (rivalry). Bowl games will probably be treated the same as well, unless a new field is added specifically for them. Mjs32193 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


I agree with Mjs32193.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The gamename field in the old templates renders rivalry games, bowl games, and any other named game in the site column, bracketed by parentheses.  In the discussions about the new templates earlier this year, I thought we reached a consensus that the gamename field would move to the opponent column.  However, this has not been implemented in the named parameter scheme of the new templates.  A few days ago I asked User:Frietjes to make this change, but she was not sure we had consensus on it.  At this point, I think she is correct about the lack of consensus.  Some instances of the new templates with unnamed parameters are placing the gamename data in the site column, e.g. 2018 Maryland Terrapins football team, while others have in the opponent column, e.g. 1922 Illinois Fighting Illini football team.  I not sure why the template was set up this way.  Multiple data points should not be clumped together in one field.  Frietjes, is there a dedicated field for gamename in the unnamed parameter scheme?  We should confirm a consensus on where the gamename field belongs, opponent or site column. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, when "rivalry" displays inside parentheses, it should not be capitalized.  This has been chronically mis-capitalized in the schedule tables and should be fixed.  Jweiss11 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I continue to believe the rivalry notation belongs logically next to the name of the school with whom the rivalry exists.  The rivalry is with the opposing school, not with the city or stadium where the game is played.  I, too, thought we had consensus on that, but perhaps it should be put to a vote. Cbl62 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Putting the rivalry notation in the opponent field will really stretch out that column, especially when it has a name and won't simply just say rivalry. Personally I think that would look awful. Maybe if it was under the team name but even that would look weird. But also why are we changing so much stuff now? I don't see why there is a need to change the way it's always been done.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


Honestly, this is all clutter for the table, overloading it to compensate for the fact that editors generally write little prose, where this would be more appropriate.  If it's going to stay, we might as well do a quick vote and move on.  It's ugly either way, and it's pretty much a subjective decision among evil choices.—Bagumba (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)



I support efforts to remove clutter from the table.  I would be fine with removing "(rivalry)" notations ... or perhaps reducing it to a single letter designation like "(R)".  (In the spirit of de-cluttering, I also support removing game time and TV network on the theory that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, as such non-essential information is better covered in individual game tables. However, many seem entrenched on inclusion of these data points.) Cbl62 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


AFD Gerry Glasco


While not football related some editors may be interested in a discussion at. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Glasco.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)



Vote on "rivalry" notation in schedule charts


At Bagumba's suggestion (above), I'm opening this vote on the use of the "rivalry" notation in team season schedules. There are two questions on which input is requested. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)



Point 1: Keep or delete


Should the "rivalry" locationnotation be kept in the schedule charts? 



  • Delete in the interest of de-cluttering the tables. Perhaps replace with a single letter designation like "(R)". Keep but convert per PCN's comment below. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • 

  • Keep, but just as (R) or (r). I am 100% behind converting to this and I think it would vastly de-clutter the table while still keeping that information. Just for an example:


DateTimeOpponentSiteTVResult
December 83:00 p.m.vs. Navy
CBS 


December 83:00 p.m.vs. Navy
CBS 


December 83:00 p.m.vs. Navy (r)
CBS 




Using the above example, I would strongly support a change to either the second or third examples. PCN02WPS 01:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I'll add that I would be willing to manually convert articles should we switch to (R) or (r). PCN02WPS 02:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


Keep with just (rivalry). I've marked out my previous comments as I have been thinking about it and have since changed my mind, I agree with Bsuorangecrush, Bagumba, and Corky in that (r) does make it a bit more confusing. PCN02WPS 02:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)



@PCN02WPS and Cbl62: will there be a note at the bottom of the table to reference what (r) means? Corky 03:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be necessary. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to think on this for a while and see the other responses. Right now, I'm not a huge fan of the "(r)"... Corky 03:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)



Point 2: If kept, where does it belong?


If kept, should the "rivalry" notation be placed in the "Opponent" or "Site" column?



  • Opponent column.  A "rivalry" designation pertains to the "opponent", not to the location where the game is played.  It is simply more logical for a "rivalry" notation to be placed next to the opponent with which the rivalry exists. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


Question: if rivalry notation moves to the "Opponent" column, does notation for bowls and other named games move as well? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


  • Opponent column - I think that rivalry designations should be kept in the opponent column as the rivalry is with the opponent, not the site. However, IMO the bowl games (and other named games, like kickoff games) would belong in the site column, as the game is being played there because it is a bowl game. PCN02WPS 01:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


PCN02WPS, that may make the most sense, but keep in mind this would necessitate a new field just for rivalries and we'd have to pick though the existing gamename field to pull out the rivalries from the rest (bowls/kickoffs/playoffs/etc).  Also, what do we do with something like Red River Showdown, which a rivalry game, but one that is tied to a specific neutral site? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO a rivalry game should remain in the opponent column regardless of whether the game is played at a fixed or neutral site. Again, the "rivalry" is with the opponent, not the site. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, you make a good point that I don't really have an answer for; I'm just basing my solution on what I think would look best, though I think convenience and ease of implementation should take precedence in this situation. I do agree with Cbl that a rivalry designation should belong in the opponent field regardless, however. PCN02WPS 03:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


  • Site column - Although I understand the argument that the rivalry has to do with the opponent and not the site, I feel that nothing should be included in the opponent field. I view the Site column as almost a description of the game details in which would include if it is a rivalry or not. I know that doesn't make too much sense but I don't know how else to explain it. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • 

  • Opponent for all rivalry games. Corky 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


Looks like the consensus here is to keep the rivalries in the tables and move them to the opponent column.  What are we doing with other named games like bowls, playoffs, and kickoffs? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)



[Coming in late] – This is the exact reason why we shouldn't be using unnamed parameters. Since the "rivalry" text is just lumped in with the site, there is no easy way to move around where the Rivalry text is placed. If we're assuming it will be "the text within parenthesis", I guess that's ok, but is error-prone. If it was a named parameter, it would be trivial to change. For this reason, I vote to keep it where it is. I also agree with Bsuorangecrush, the "site" column is more a description of the game details. Maybe change "Site" to "Details". — X96lee15 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

X96lee15, I agree with your general sentiment about unnamed parameters.  In this specific case, the unnamed parameter scheme seems to have been set up without a dedicated gamename field and some editor have just be clumping the data into the opponent field—not good.  @Frietjes: was there a reason for this?  Can this be fixed? Jweiss11 (talk)


 So where we stand on this?  I don't see I clear a consensus here, which would suggest we revert to the status quo where the gamename field is place in the site column.    @Frietjes:, can you please address my question above?  The unnamed parameter scheme seems to have been set up without a dedicated gamename field.  Was there a reason for this?  Can this be fixed? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

it was set up as WYSIWYG with minor styling tweaks.  yes, we could have a dedicated gamename column.  this, of course, would not prevent people from putting it other places. Frietjes (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we please add the dedicated gamename field? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


Inclusion of rankings table on yearly page


What is the thought consensus on the inclusion of a team's weekly ranking as show in their annual article? Specifically, if the team either was never ranked during the entire season, or if the team received votes at different points in the season - but was never ranked within the top 25. I'm of the opinion that even if not ranked during the season that the table serves as a piece of information to the reader of their non-ranking or "RV" during a particular week (whether or not that piece of information can be inferred from the overall record). I'm looking for an objective, non-partial view. @Bsuorangecrush: please also offer your POV. BarkeepChat 18:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)



If you are talking about the separate table below the schedule table I would say that it should be included as long as a team received votes. If they never received votes then for the most part consensus has been that there shouldn't be a table. If you mean in the schedule table such as a case of RV Tulsa vs #21 Houston, consensus has definitely been against it in the schedule table.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Receiving votes is not relevant enough for an entire table. The table is to track ranknings, not simply votes. If a team is never ranked then it mostly becomes a table filled with a bunch of NR. There are a lot of teams that may only receive a few votes early in the year then never again. A table with 10+ weeks or so of NR is a waste of space and not historically significant. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO, we should do it one of two ways. Either (1) keep the table if a team receives votes, even if they never get into the top 25, or (2) take off the "RV" aspect entirely and just do the ranking or "NR". PCN02WPS 02:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


Personally I'm of the opinion that the more objective information available, the better. The difference between receiving votes and not receiving votes is significant, and should be preserved in the wiki pages if it is available. I would support keeping tables that only featured **RV** entries.


Right now, the biggest problems with the ranking tables are that (1) it's hard to easily visualize the difference between Not Ranked and Received Votes, and (2) it's hard to match the Week number with the results in the schedule table. To fix these problems, I would support looking into replacing the NR notation with just a dashed line, and replacing the "week" notation with the date of the poll. Ostealthy (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


Discussion of stadium naming protocol


There is a split in usage as to whether to use a hypen or dash in names of stadiums such as Rice-Eccles (currently hyphenated), Jordan-Hare (currently hyphenated), Williams-Brice (currently hyphenated), Bryant–Denny (currently dashed), Ross–Ade (currently dashed), and Vaught–Hemingway (currently dashed). For those interested in such things, the discussion can be found at Talk:Rice-Eccles Stadium#Requested move 7 July 2018. Cbl62 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)



Rivarly results table settings


Is there a consensus concerning which version of the Template:Sports rivalry series table should be used in articles? It seems that the "compact" version is used most often, but this is a bad idea, because that configuration leaves out a column for the losing team. This sounds reasonable on the surface - if one team lost, then the other guys must've won, right? Sure, but that setting also hides any mention of the ranking of the losing team. This information is extremely important in the history of a rivalry. Big upsets, top-10 clashes, tales of former glory (or lack thereof) are part of what turns a college football game into a legendary Saturday in the fall.

Hiding rankings in the results table leaves out a big part of what makes a rivalry notable in the first place. Whenever possible and practical, the standard version of the series table should be used, imo. Thoughts? Zeng8r (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)



IMO, the compact version works just fine, if even better. It displays the winner, location, date, and score, which is what you need to know while keeping it simple. I'd say that any notable games ("Big upsets, top-10 clashes, tales of former glory") could be explained in more detail in the sections below the table, complete with game summaries and statistics. PCN02WPS 23:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)



@Zeng8r and Cbl62: Of the 201 FBS rivalries involving two teams that I counted on this page, I tallied 198 pages with compact tables, 2 pages with expanded tables, and 1 page without a table. Examples listed below.
Compact: Apple Cup, Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry, Bedlam Series (has attendance as well), Big Game (American football)
Expanded: Backyard Brawl, North Carolina–NC State football rivalry (these are the only two)


I'm aware that these can be changed from compact to expanded by pasting a line of text into the template, but I feel as if the effort of converting 198 pages to expanded version just isn't worth it. PCN02WPS 05:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


ADDITIONAL COMMENT: I will add that both of the pages that use the expanded format don't actually use the template, but rather use improvised wikitables. The template in compact and expanded form being used exactly as it is supposed to can be seen on the actual template's page (Template:Sports rivalry series table#Examples). PCN02WPS 05:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The improvised version found at Backyard Brawl strikes me as unnecessarily detailed with fields like TV and running series record.  However, what User:Zeng8r is advocating is a slightly expanded option as it appeared here for Florida–Georgia football rivalry. The template allows for such an option, and it makes some sense in unusual cases where both teams are frequently ranked.  After a budding edit war, Zeng8r attempted to engage the other editor (User:CollegeRivalry) who simply removed the engagement from their talk page without responding.  See diff. My 2 cents: I generally prefer the compact version, but in special cases like Florida-Georgia, adding the extra column is helpful for the reasons elucidated by Zeng8r on College Rivalry's talk page.  Cbl62 (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with Zeng8r when he says "making that version of the table a very poor choice for this rivalry and for any other series in which the teams are regularly ranked". I wouldn't go so far as to say that the compact version is "a very poor choice" in regards to FLA-UGA, but I would say that, in series where both teams are often ranked, I would not have a problem using the version (or something similar) linked in Cbl's comment above. PCN02WPS 21:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the input, everyone, and thanks @Cbl62: for digging a little deeper and explaining the issue, as I've been traveling and haven't had a chance to log in. I'm not arguing that the slightly expanded results table should be standard for every rivalry article, or that somebody should go in and change the table settings in all 198 (which seems like an awfully large number, imo). But as PCN02WPS said, it makes sense for some articles, like Florida/Georgia. Guess it can be decided on a case-by-case basis. Zeng8r (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)



BCS AQ


User:AllisonFoley has changed a lot of pages recently from saying “BCS” and “non-BCS” to “BCS AQ conference” and “BCS non-AQ confernce”. Isn’t this completely unnecessary if not down right false? That’s basically saying all FBS teams were in BCS conferences. I’ve began undoing these changes because they don’t seem to make sense. Am I justified in this thinking? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)



Before the CFP, it was commonplace to refer to the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, and SEC as the "BCS" conferences, which was generally understood to be shorthand for the BCS automatically qualifying conferences. Today we talk about the "Power 5" in the same way (the same group minus the Big East). I don't really see a problem with AllisonFoley's edits; she is merely clarifying the shorthand usage of "BCS" as they were intended to mean "major conference", or in 1998-2013 usage, AQ. Ostealthy (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But the non-BCS conferences were not part of the BCS so calling them BCS non AQ in inaccurate. The BCS was not all FBS conferences. This would effect hundreds of pages. Why change them all now to a more confusing wording? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But the non-AQ conferences *were* "part of the BCS" in that they still (nominally, at least) competed to go to the same BCS Championship game as the other conferences and fought for spots in the same BCS bowls. "BCS non-AQ" can easily be interpreted as "conferences that were not automatically qualifiers under the BCS". It's simply another way of saying the same thing as "non-BCS" that is, in my opinion, not confusing. I don't think the phrase "BCS non-AQ" necessarily implies "signatory of the BCS's charter".


Now, I wouldn't suggest changing every single instance of "BCS" to "BCS AQ", but I am indifferent to the changes that have already been made. Ostealthy (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Using BCS that way indicates that all FBS teams and conferences were part of the BCS. That is not true. Nobody ever referred to the non-BCS conferences as BCS-non AQ. BCS and FBS can’t be used to refer to the same thing which is eccentrically what this is doing. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


IMO, you're right Bsuorangecrush. BCS was a specific term (apparently used from 1998–2013) that is no longer in use. AQ and non-AQ are also specific terms that are now in use. Their usages didn't overlap and using them together is incorrect. BCS is equivalent to AQ and non-BCS is now equivalent to non-AQ. BCS AQ correct. It's kid of like saying a "Division I-A FBS school" or a "Division IAA FCS school". — X96lee15 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. BCS AQ and non-AQ were labels of the BCS era, not terms used today. -AllisonFoley (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Every FBS conference was part of the BCS. There were BCS automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences and BCS non-automatic qualifying (non-AQ) conferences. Referring to conferences as "BCS conferences" and "non-BCS conferences" is false labeling. I'm simply correcting all of the mistakes. -AllisonFoley (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)



Every conference was not part of the BCS. There were the BCS 6 and all the rest were non-BCS. You aren’t correcting mistakes, you are changing how they were known. Why else do you think there are so many pages using the original nomenclature? You’re saying they have all been wrong for years now? They were already all worded correct. Example: when Boise State beat Virginia Tch and Georgia those were wins over BCS teams. When they beat Toledo and Bowling Green they weren’t referred to wins over BCS-non AQ. Nobody ever referred to it that way. It was simply BCS and non-BCS. Adding AQ is completely unneeded and was never used at the time. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Those conferences were commonly mislabeled by the media due to ignorance or worse, but that does not change the fact that every FBS conference was part of the BCS and that the conferences were either BCS automatic qualifying (AQ) or non-automatic qualifying (non-AQ). As a trusted go-to source for information, Wikipedia editors have a duty to its readers to not copy inaccuracies but to display precise and accurate information. If you need me to provide sources to prove my case, I will, but I think most every member of this WikiProject knows that AQ and non-AQ were the proper distinctions between the two groups of FBS conferences during the BCS era. -AllisonFoley (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Obvoiusly not “most every member of this wiki project” knows that those were the proper distinctions since it was not widely used. That is asinine. If every FBS team was considered BCS then what is the point of even saying BCS? AQ and non AQ would be all that is needed. But no, nobody ever said it that way. It was BCS and non-BCS. Changing the nomenclature on hundreds of pages 5 years after it desolved and adding in extra phrasing is completely absurd. Just google BCS non-BCS and there are a ton of examples of this being the widely accepted phrasing (I tried to link some pages but it said some of the sites were blacklisted from Wikipedia?). Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because you used incorrect nomenclature doesn't mean most others didn't know the correct terminology. Sure, you can just shorten it to AQ conference if you want, but I think "BCS" is an important qualifier for "AQ" and "non-AQ" to give those terms context. And many used AQ and non-AQ as those terms were widely used. A simple Google search shows that. I think we've already established that those BCS and non-BCS terms were commonly used incorrectly as stated directly on BCSfootball.org. Just because it was common doesn't make it correct. The official BCS website makes it clear that BCS conference refers to all FBS conferences and AQ and non-AQ were the BCS conference distinctions. I took the initiative to correct the terminology on all of those pages so nobody else had to bother with it. Maybe reverting all my corrections back to incorrect terminology was absurd and unnecessary work. - AllisonFoley (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I stand by my reverts. There was no reason for any of those changes. They were totally fine for 5 years. It wasn’t “incorrect terminology”. It was the accepted terminology that confused no one. No reason to change the commonly used names to some confusing form that nobody has ever used. If they were all so wrong this would have been an issue 5 years ago. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No reason for those changes? Those articles were incorrect, according to the official BCS website like I've linked a couple times for you. I also didn't know there was a 5-year statute of limitations to correct an article on Wikipedia. The only confusing thing is insisting on using incorrect terminology that means something other than what is intended. Automatic qualifying (AQ/non-AQ) status is what clarifies exactly what is being referenced, the exact opposite of confusing. You keep saying that AQ and non-AQ are confusing terms that nobody has ever used, and that's 100% false. The BCS, ESPN, CBS, Fox, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, etc. all used AQ and non-AQ. The list goes on. Additionally, the AQ and non-AQ terms were used throughout numerous Wikipedia articles before I made any changes. I'm not making all this up. I promise! -AllisonFoley (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

here, here, here, here, here, here. ALL OF THEM USE BCS AND NON BCS!!! And that is just from the first page on google. Stop saying that is is 100% false to use it that way when it is the widely accepted nomenclature. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I get it. Many people used the incorrect term. I'm not disputing that. I'm also not going to sit here and link the hundreds of thousands of articles that used BCS AQ/non-AQ correctly. That would be silly. Anyone can see with a simple Google search. What I said was 100% false is your claim that AQ/non-AQ is "some confusing form that nobody has ever used." That is 100% false, and I think everyone here can see that. AQ/non-AQ was commonly used, and it's the most accurate terminology. The official BCS website clearly states the way you are insisting on using the term is wrong. That's why it should be changed from the inaccurate terminology you insist on keeping. Just because something has been wrong for five years doesn't mean it can't be corrected. AllisonFoley (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You are the only one who wants to change the accepted terminology. Just leave it be. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think @Ostealthy: shared agreement with my corrections. It just feels like you are unilaterally shouting me down and reverting my corrections in order to maintain an inaccurate usage of college football nomenclature for some reason. I respectfully didn't revert any of your edits in order to avoid an edit war. I feel strongly about making these corrections because I think it's our duty to make this encyclopedia as accurate as possible and not be a source of the spread of ignorance regarding the BCS system. I'd like to read more opinions on this matter from others. Thank you for your patience, and I'd appreciate comments from other members of this WikiProject because I don't think we've come to a consensus on this issue yet. -AllisonFoley (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't "inaccurate usage of college football nomenclature" if everyone had zero problem with it until you brought it up years after the fact. It was absolutely fine the way it was and confused no one.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


From the official website BCSfootball.org: All 10 conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision are considered BCS conferences. There is some confusion associated with this as the term "BCS conference" is often used incorrectly to describe an "automatic qualifying" conference. The non-AQ conferences are just as much BCS conferences as the six AQ conferences. Conferences earn AQ status by on-field competition. The 10 BCS Conferences are the American Athletic Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference, Pac-12 Conference, Southeastern Conference and Sun Belt Conference. -AllisonFoley (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well there you have it! Sidenote: it would probably be helpful to link to Power Five conferences#Under the BCS system whenever using the AQ acronym. Ostealthy (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)



IP edits on Miami season articles


We have an IP editor introducing bad formatting to schedule tables at 1968 Miami Hurricanes football team through 1977 Miami Hurricanes football team, reverting edits to remediate and improve these tables, and declaring an unwillingness to collaborate.  I've reported this IP address for edit warring, but it may be a good idea for some other folks to keep an eye on these articles since it seems this editor has used more than one IP recently.  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)



Per User:NeilN's suggestion, let's blow this out to a discussion about the style in question.  Does anyone think there is merit to repeating wikilinks of stadiums and cities in schedule tables, e.g. 1970 Miami Hurricanes football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should link stadiums or cities other than the first mention in a CFB schedule. Not only is it unnecessary, but it would require thousands of wikilinks to be added to the vast majority of the articles in the project. PCN02WPS 01:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. No reason to have multiple links within the same table. First instance only should be linked. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with PCN and Bsu.  I think consensus is pretty clear on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think there was much of a debate on this point.  Cbl, I see you had a run-in with the editor in question (Drew1830) here a few months back.  He and all associated IPs are now blocked for a month.  Let's keep an eye on the Miami articles in case he should resurface.  Jweiss11 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


AfD for Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry


@Jweiss11, Cbl62, UCO2009bluejay, Ostealthy, Bagumba, CalebHughes,  and CollegeRivalry: I have nominated the Ark-Miss.St. rivalry page for deletion, the link to the discussion can be seen below. I would greatly appreciate everyone's opinion, even if they may differ from mine.

AfD discussion link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry

Thanks all, PCN02WPS 04:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)



Thanks for nominating.  I have voted to delete.  Going forward we should refrain from arguments in these discussions that rest on some editor's personal testimony as a football fan of one program  or another.  What matters here are the reliable third-party sources.  Jweiss11 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


@CalebHughes: A prolific new editor has created seven[4] of these new "rivalry" article all of which seem to fail WP:GNG at a glance.  A bulk AfD (WP:MULTIAFD) seem appropriate. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)



I would be willing to bulk AfD these within the next day or so if the community thanks that would be appropriate. PCN02WPS 19:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional AfDs are appropriate, but I oppose a bulk or mass AfDs in such cases. Each claimed rivalry involves very different histories, facts and circumstances and needs to evaluated on its own merit. These articles cannot and should not be evaluated "at a glance", as suggested above. Bulk or mass AfDs discourage the separate evaluation of each case on its merits. WP:MULTIAFD does not apply here, as there is not (a) a "group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles", (b) a "group of hoax articles by the same editor", (c) a "group of spam articles by the same editor", or (d) a "series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products". MULTIAFD further states: "For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as 'should wikipedia include this type of article'. Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it." Cbl62 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • As just one example, Alabama–Clemson involves very different circumstances. That series has a history dating to 1900, has decided or helped decide the national championship each of the past three seasons, and has a history of multiple high profile meetings, including 2017 (#1 vs #4), 2016 (#1 vs. #2), 2015 (#1 vs. #2), 2008 (#9 vs. #24). There is also a considerable body of coverage now referring to this as a rivalry.  E.g., here, here, and here. Not sure which way I would vote until digging in to do some fairly involved research, but it seems comparable to Alabama-Penn State that was kept in an earlier AfD discussion here. By bundling articles like this with others that have little in common, we do a disservice to the process and act counter to WP:MULTIAFD. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • 

  • As a second example, UTEP–UTSA might properly be deleted given its recent vintage, but it involves a distinct issue as to whether a new or developing rivalry should have a stand-alone article. (Compare, e.g., Battle Line Rivalry.) There is coverage talking about UTEP–UTSA as such a rivalry. E.g., here, here, here, here, and here. Again, I don't know which way I would vote without digging deeper, but there is a reasonable discussion to be had here, and bundling it with 5 other, largely dissimilar rivalries tends to hamper and limit the analysis/discussion of each article's merits. Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


AfD for Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry


I want to let everyone know, I have nominated Georgia–Ole Miss rivalry page for deletion. 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry



Just a note: the discussion can be seen at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry, rather than the above link. PCN02WPS 05:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Rivalry/series AfD library


Given that we appear to be in a fresh wave of AfDs aimed at rivalry articles, I've created a library of past discussions on this topic for whatever assistance/perspective it may provide. It is found here: "Rivalry/series AfD library". In looking over the outcomes, I haven't agreed with all, but it does appear that our project has been diligent and thoughtful in policing this area. Cbl62 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)



AfD: 2017 Angelo State Rams football team and 2018 Angelo State Rams football team


2017 Angelo State Rams football team and 2018 Angelo State Rams football team have been nominated for deletion.  Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Angelo State Rams football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Angelo State Rams football team.  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)



I was going to create the other teams in the conference, but I'll wait until this is settled. I still believe it should be kept. --Jpp858 (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jpp858: What would help the cause of saving these articles and those of their fellow conference members would be to beef up to the 2017 Angelo State article with strong third-party sourcing.  Perhaps you want to take that on? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jpp858: Jweiss is right.  To save these articles, we need significant coverage from multiple, reliable, and independent sources. If you can come up with such sources, you will have a strong argument that WP:GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Watchlists on season articles


For the first time since I've started creating pages, we already have pages created for every FBS and FCS team long before the season starts. I also went though and added all the game summaries. So since we are so far ahead I decided to expand on pages, right now with adding players on watch lists since most of them are being released this week. However, User:Rockchalk717 has removed them from the Kansas page simply saying "Watchlists are not notable. Do not include." If they are not notable then why do they exist? As long as they are sourced I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be included. Thoughts? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)



I will be reverting the page again ONLY because Wikipedia policies require during a content dispute, the page remain on the predisputed version during the discussion.


Now for my view point, there are many things that exist that aren't notable for Wikipedia. Each watch list as 20 or 30 players. There are over 30 awards and most of which have watch lists. Some players can be featured on multiple. So that means there are 500+ players named to watch lists (probably more) that do not even wind up being finalists. Some group position awards, such as Butkus or Thorpe, can have multiple players from the same team named. The combination of the high amount of awards and the high number of players named to the watch lists, dilutes the importance and notability.--Rockchalk717  03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


I would say that Rockchalk717 makes a good point that there are lots of players on lots of watchlists that aren't finalists, which may not be notable enough to include in every team's page, but personally I wouldn't delete the list from Arkansas' page, or any other page for that matter. PCN02WPS 04:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 99% of players on watch lists don't end up winning the awards, or even get named as finalists, but the watch lists still garner attention for the players on them during the preseason. They are important enough for the schools to announce them when they have a player on them such as Kansas did here. I would say that makes them notable. Why not show the attention players are getting before games are even played? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


A player being listed on an award watch list means that the player is expected to be one of the 30ish best players at his position for the season. For a league with 130 teams, that seems pretty damn notable to me. A Butkus watch list player is considered to be one of the 50 best defensive players going into the year, out of the 1400+ players expected to be defensive starters. This is exactly the kind of thing you'd want in a "preseason" section, along with the teams placement in media polls. Good work on this, BSU. Ostealthy (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way, Kansas (kills me to admit this being a fan) is at the bottom of teams from the power conferences. Barring the .01% they have another random 10+ win season like in 2007, any players on Kansas have next to no shot of winning any award. Additionally, I believe watch lists are just barely notable enough to be included in the body of an individual players article, but not notable enough to be on the season page or in the players infobox.--Rockchalk717  17:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


It may depend on the particular award. Butkus Award is one thing. But consider the Rimington Trophy.  Its watch list recognizes 57 college football centers. See here. That's roughly 50% of the starting centers in Division I FBS.  With such a low threshold for inclusion, its listing in a season team article strikes me as "padding" or "fancruft". Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)



I am yet to see an argument as to why they shouldn't be included. Schools recognize them. Sportscasters mention them being on the lists during broadcasts. They recognize the best players for each team. They have been included on season articles in the past. I don't see any difference between these and preseason all-conference teams (which I also plan on including on team pages). Why not have pages with as much information as we can? Especially when it is all sourced. "Padding" is adding info about radio rights (some pages have it), massive depth charts that don't get updated, off season departures listing players that have nothing to do with that season, returning starters. Watch lists seem to warrant inclusion far more that some things that get included. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You may not agree with it, but I've given you an argument as to the Rimington Trophy watchlist. A preseason watchlist that includes half of the starting centers in Division I FBS is just not sufficiently notable. IMO inclusion on this particular watchlist is in the nature of WP:FANCRUFT. Also, our season articles are becoming overwhelmed with charts.  We should be endeavoring to make our season articles more rich with narrative text and less laden with charts upon charts. Cbl62 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 Alabama Crimson Tide football team is a good example.  I have to scroll at length through eight very dense charts before I get to the 2018 schedule, which is IMO the single most important piece of information about an upcoming season. Way too many charts! Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should always put the schedule table at the top of the body, immediately following the lead? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I am 1,000% -- no, 10,000% -- in support of that! Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be ok. It may look strange to have the schedule in front of some preseason/recruiting items, but It is probably the most important part of the article. Maybe after the previous season section? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


Don't take this the wrong way but just because you personally don't agree with the argument doesn't mean it isn't a valid one. I don't agree with yours, but it is still a valid argument. The Rimington trophy is a prime example of how diluted watchlists are which causes what is, in my opinion, a lack of notability with them. You mentioned the previous season section too, which I've never really agreed with the inclusion of that section either. If someone wants to know what happened the previous season they can simply navigate to the previous season which is always linked in the article. The point Cbl62 makes is a good one too. If we so vote to include, we need to make easy to navigate especially for the powerhouse teams like Alabama LSU USC Miami etc that have recruits and everything in them.--Rockchalk717  22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You keep on bringing up the Rimington as though it's a representative example, when really it is an outlier. Here are the 2018 watch lists so far:

  • Bednarik: 88 defensive players out of a pool of ~1430
    • 

  • Biletnikoff: 50 receivers out of a pool of ~390
    • 

  • Doak Walker: 122 RBs out of a pool of ~260


(this one is egregious but to be fair, it designates this list not as a watch list but a candidates list)


  • Lott Trophy: 42 defensive players out of a pool of ~1430
    • 

  • Maxwell: 84 players out of a pool of ~3380
    • 

  • O'Brien: 26 QBs out of a pool of ~130


It seems clear to me that most of the watch lists actually do recognize who the best players are expected to be in the upcoming year. Most teams will only have 1-10 players listed. It seems like listing these watch list players is a perfectly fine way to help paint a picture of the team's preseason expectations. Ostealthy (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the problem with inclusion of it, then we will eventually have the question come up "Should we include preseason awards, preseason All-Conference teams, pre-season All-American teams". Before we know it the season pages will be overloaded with more information then is comfortable to navigate through for a sport who's season is 3/3 and a half months long for most teams.--Rockchalk717  02:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Preseason conference teams should be included, and I plan on adding them as they come out. I don't think all-american teams should be included because there are just too many papers/magazines/pundits who put out their own lists, that would be a bit much. Only reason this is even an issue this year is because we are so far ahead. These lists in the past were only added on pages, mostly P5 pages, who had a devoted individual editing them. With every page created well before the season we can actually expand on them. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


AP All-American would be fine to use. That's what most consider the official All-American team anyway. It seems we are heading towards the consensus of inclusion and to list the schedule first, but what about the order after that? Roster perhaps?--Rockchalk717  05:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Schedule first is key. I'm flexible on what comes after that. Cbl62 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


I think watch lists are more suitable at national level at 2018 NCAA Division I FBS football season.  Breaking down by conference is undue, somehow seeming to prop up the conference.  I think only the winners need to be mentioned there.—Bagumba (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)



That does make pretty good sense actually. I think that's a good idea.--Rockchalk717  03:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


Technical issue with editing


For the past few days I've been experiencing a small technical issue with editing.  Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Undo function no longer working in edit mode.  Has anyone else experienced anything like this? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)



Suggestions for infobox NCAA team season


It only makes sense to have different parameters for offensive and defensive coordinators, but this was not the main cleavage with assistat coaches in the days of iron man football. Several editors seem to be interested in the past, and I assume the infobox is supposed to work just as well for them.  In that case, there should be parameters for line coach and backfield coach, and given the forward pass and a few other things, teams could also have an ends coach. There are of course other positions possible which will seem like having "left guard coach" on there, head scout or whatever, but one doesn't see those like one sees the above positions on surveys of old coach's careers. Cake (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)



CFD:College football annual team awards


I have nominated Category:Minnesota Golden Gophers football annual team awards and Category:Washington Huskies football annual team awards, both created by User:UW Dawgs, for deletion.  Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 28#College football annual team awards for the discussion.  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)



AfD for Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry


Hi all, I have nominated Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry for deletion. The discussion can be seen at the link below.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry

Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)



New college football rivalry AfDs


Hello all,

I have nominated the following college football rivalry pages for deletion:

Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (2nd nomination))

Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (2nd nomination))

Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry)

Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry)

Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry)

Rice–Texas football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rice–Texas football rivalry)

Penn State–Temple football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penn State–Temple football rivalry)

Please feel free to discuss your opinions on these matters on the specific page's AfD page. Thanks! CalebHughes (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)



New rivalry articles


Three new rivalry articles have cropped up in last week or so:




Are these legit rivalries? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)



My $.02, I don't believe so. You may find something on Alabama-Clemson for the things on modern times. (Also NCAA 2K3 had a glitch where the announcers pretended it was the Iron Bowl, but I digress.) These are just the latest string of SEC Conference match-ups that someone thinks is a rivalry that we've consistently seen little evidence to pass guidelines. (Anybody want to create Texas A&M-Kentucky?)--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, these are not rivalries at all. Speaking as an Arkansas fan, Arkansas-Miss.St. is not a rivalry. It's a SEC matchup with some competitive games recently. It's not presented as a rivalry, never has been. Neither is Alabama-Clemson. IMO, neither is Arkansas-Auburn, but that page continues to live on. If it was my decision, I'd axe that page too. PCN02WPS 02:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


Echoing the other two replies, I vote no. Rivalries in college football are built over decades. They are characterized by mutual hatred fostered over generations. They are not defined by a few successive high-stakes matches (Alabama-Clemson) or a mere repetition of games between conference foes. Ostealthy (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


In US sports, non-notable rivalry articles seems to come up most often in college football. Would people support some adding some wording in WP:NRIVALRY saying it needs to be more than a source about an upcoming game that throws out the term “rivalry”?  There should be coverage that talks about it’s history beyond last year’s result.—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)



I would absolutely support that, considering all that's there is a single line of text. PCN02WPS 15:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


  • FWIW, my effort from back in 2015 to distill some meaningful standards in this topic area can be found at User:Cbl62/College football series notability. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

    • @Cbl62: That's a fine start for concrete examples for the WikiProject, but too specific for sports rivalries in general and WP:NRIVALRY.  From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/76ers–Lakers rivalry which I nominate before (since deleted), these seem like generic talking points: Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games or series, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. Moreover, routine coverage liberally uses the term rivalry to manufacture hype. Currently, the lone substantial work cited is from Fansided, an amateur blog site for fans.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


I'd support something along these lines: 
"In order to support a stand-alone article, a rivalry should have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources.  The type of coverage required is in-depth coverage dealing with the series as a rivalry and not simply WP:ROUTINE game coverage. 
Factors that may considered in determining whether a series should be considered a rivalry include: 
(i) Geographic proximity. While not necessarily the case, intra-city (e.g., UCLA–USC, Knicks–Nets, Islanders–Rangers), intra-state (e.g., Apple Cup, 49ers–Rams), or border-state series (e.g., Bears–Packers, Michigan–Ohio State), are more likely to be considered rivalries); 
(ii) Existence of a trophy (e.g., Little Brown Jug) or an official name for the series (e.g., Freeway Series); 
(iii) Competitiveness of the series (a competitive series is more likely to be considered a rivalry); 
(iv) Length and frequency of play (series of short duration or which have been played infrequently are less likely to be considered rivalries); and 
(v) Prominence of the programs (series played between prominent teams (e.g., Dodgers–Yankees or Celtics–Lakers) are more likely to be considered as notable rivalries)."
 Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your points, but I don't think they would be effective as SNGs.  I believe SNGs work best when they are either objective points where notability is presumed if one is met, or red flags on notability mistakes. Though well meaning, I have seen on many occasions where people argue notability using WP:NCOLLATH's "Gained national media attention as an individual", which is a weaker, more subjective standard than GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 Here's another two new rivalry articles created by the same editor:



Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)



There are other pages such as Auburn–Florida football rivalry, Auburn–Tulane football rivalry, Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry and some other debatable pages that I have noticed that doesn't seem to be discussed in this thread. Why don't we discuss those?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


From what I can see, we are not discussing those pages because they appear to be rivalries. Though the three you linked are all defunct rivalries in the sense that they are not played annually, that does not make them not rivalries. Auburn and Florida played every year from 1945–2002, Auburn and Tulane played every year from 1921–1952, and Auburn and Tennessee played annually from 1956–1991. On the flip side, Alabama and Clemson have never played for more than four years in a row. Similarly, Louisville and West Virginia played for seven years in a row, from 2005 (when Louisville joined the Big East) to 2011 (West Virginia's last season in the Big East), but never again since then, showing that it was only a conference matchup. Arkansas and Mississippi State have played annually since 1992, the year Arkansas joined the SEC, showing that it's always just been an SEC West divisional game and not necessarily a rivalry. PCN02WPS 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

We got the Arkansas fan perspective and I as a graduate from MSU and fan of the team, I don't consider Arkansas as a rival. I say the main rivals for MSU in football, is Ole Miss, Alabama and LSU in that particular order. There might be some people that might consider the Razorbacks as a rival for their own personal reasons, but its not a main rival of the school. Its just a team that we have to play annually. I consider TAMU as a big rival, but that is just for my own enjoyment. For the UTEP-UTSA rivalry, that is a rivalry that could spark anytime, with the many similarities that both the schools share such as both being apart of the University of Texas System. Its not as big as Texas State rivalry is to UTSA and the Battle of I-10 is to UTEP, but it soon could be. Just like how the North Texas–UTSA football rivalry got heated real fast between the two schools and only played 5 games. --Jpp858 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


Just because a game is played every year for a period of time doesn't mean its a rivalry. I doubt Auburn fans consider Florida a true rival like they do Alabama and Georgia. Same goes with Florida. Florida fans probably wouldn't Auburn on the same level as Georgia, Florida State or even Tennessee. There needs to be a distinction between historical series and rivalries. Ole Miss and Georgia played every year from 1966-2002, but there seems to be hostility towards them as a rivalry. Alabama–Penn State football rivalry is another page that I'm concerned about. Alabama and Penn State don't consider each other rivals. Bama fans wouldn't put Penn State alongside LSU and Auburn, and PSU fans wouldn't put Alabama alongside Michigan State or Ohio State. These are inconsistencies that need to be addressed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


I noticed a Ole Miss–Auburn rivalry page was created yesterday. I think the following articles should be nominated for deletion Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry, Alabama–Clemson football rivalry, and Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry. Many of these "Rivalries" have not been around long enough to be considered notable. CollegeRivalry (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)



CollegeRivalry, I agree completely. PCN02WPS 01:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 Fellas, can we please refrain from removing any of these rivalry article from team navboxes?  As long as a rivalry article (or really any article about a given team) exists, it should be included in the relevant team navboxes.  If you don't think something is a legit rivalry, please AfD it.  Simply removing it from a navbox just sweeps the problem under the rug.  Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: the Arkansas instance is my bad, I won't do that again. However, will there be any organized effort to delete some of these non-existant rivalry pages? PCN02WPS 01:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, no worries.  I don't think anyone here should he bashful about nominating any of these for deletion.  I'll vote delete on any five I've bulleted.  @CalebHughes:, I hope you won't be discouraged should any of these articles you've created be deleted.  I see you're a pretty new editor.  Even though I think these five articles are not notable enough as rivalries to warrant articles, the work you did there was well-written, well-formatted, and well-cited.  I hope you'll continue you efforts.  Perhaps you want to tackle some Division I program, team season, or coach articles?  None of those are in jeopardy of being deleted.  You're also right that there are probably a bunch of other iffy rivalry articles that have lingered around a while.  Let's identify them and see about nominating them for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


Jweiss11 Lets look at Alabama–Penn State football rivalry, Auburn–Tulane football rivalry, Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry, Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry, Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry, Rice–Texas football rivalry and Penn State–Temple football rivalry. All these are debatable for one reason or another. Those are the ones that jump out at me. However, there may be more, so lets be diligent and look at all rivalry pages. I'm not sure how to nominate them for deletion, so maybe could you or another editor do so? Thanks. CalebHughes (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)CalebHughes

CalebHughes, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.  That page has all instructions for nominating an article for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support deletion for most of the pages listed above by CalebHughes, and I'm preparing a deletion bid for Arkansas–Auburn as well. @CalebHughes: I'd be willing to work with you to AfD some of the pages you listed, if you need assistance. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


PCN02WPS Jweiss11  I have nominated all said rivalry articles for deletion. Please feel free to visit the AfD pages and correct any format errors I may have made. Thanks! CalebHughes (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@CalebHughes: just a few comments - you have skipped several key steps in these AfDs. Please, please read the instructions on this page. The entries are missing some things (there is a template you need to paste in; your reasoning for deletion goes there) and these AfDs aren't listed anywhere. Drop me a message on my talk page if you need some assistance. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


CfD:Apple Cup and Rocky Mountain Showdown


I have nominated Category:Apple Cup, Category:Apple Cup venues, and Category:Rocky Mountain Showdown for deletion.  Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 1. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)



The third rail of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign


Full disclosure I graduated from a Division II school, and am generally an inclusionist for season articles. But I also will defend to my end on this project the rule of consensus. That being said, the Angelo State AFDs bring up a good question, what qualifies as a notable season for a small college program? This has been a third rail for the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign, as we have fully addressed that Division I FBS seasons are notable (often including those where the school played below Division I), and at least since 2010 created pages for every FCS school's season (which would suggest notability at the FCS level). However, some editors have created articles for schools that many have never heard of, and have decades old defunct programs. While I certainly don't object to these, especially if they pass some guideline, I don't believe we have addressed what should be included for Divisions II/III and NAIA. Above all, if these articles pass GNG they should be kept. But what about the NSeasons standard, I think it is time we come up with a definitive framework. Here would be some questions/statements/proposals I have:



  • A) All Division II-III/NAIA national championship seasons should indisputably pass the notablity guideline for seasons. They all get at least some national mention after all. ex. 1974 Central Michigan Chippewas football team & 2017 Texas A&M–Commerce Lions football team, etc.
    • 

  • B) We should set a bar what level would be acceptable, my suggestion would be for all playoff appearing teams, as well as conference championship seasons. ex. 1992 Carleton Knights football team
    • 

  • C) Set a guideline regarding WP:Seasons regarding time frame and divisional changes. Of course the idea behind "Notability is not temporary" should reign supreme. Not all current FBS teams have always been FBS or FCS, Boise, UCF, UAB, Akron, Central Michigan etc. (many of whom have pages for these years) Furthermore, some current smaller division teams used to be FBS teams or played in what is now power five conferences W TA&M, U Chicago, Sewanee, Grinnell etc.
    • 

  • D) Of course any article that passes GNG should be kept (period). But what about those that are questionable existing(!) such as a 1920s Spring Hill, or 2017 Angelo State? What should be done with those? If keep is not a feasible option I would suggest a merge, but that brings up a question as to what? The program, conference season articles, a list of seasons (1962 Appalachian State Mountaineers football team is an example), a decade list article (Obviously we've had precedent of that with FBS articles)? I'm just throwing those out there. For the sake of consensus and precedence please comment so we can settle this issue. Thoughts on each of these bullets? Calling all editors especially small college/early era enthusiasts @Corkythehornetfan:, @Paulmcdonald:, @MisterCake:- Let's figure this out please.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


UCO2009bluejay, thanks for opening the discussion on this.  I was hoping those Angelo State AfDs would bring us to this topic. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Revision of WP:NSEASONS would have to be approved at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports); this is because NSEASONS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). To secure such approval, some participants at that forum will expect proof (through randomized statistical sampling) that the overwhelming majority (> 90% at minimum, some even say > 99%) of such Division II, III, NAIA national champions, conference champions, playoff participants, etc., pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


I'm always open to a discussion of notability.  I recommend that if we are going to do a "deep dive" that we create a subpage and give ourselves a set time frame, then invite someone from an uninterested project to come help evaluate consensus.  I do recall that in prior discussions everything seemed to come back to WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am missing what is wrong about Spring Hill. I hadn't heard of them either, but you've got Mike Donahue, Moon Ducote, and Red Harris coaching the teams, and several years where I don't know the coach. One suspects there were other notable Auburn figures who coached there. Regardless, they played FBS football. I'd say they're as notable as a Middle Tennessee State season or whatever,  or a Vanderbilt season today. They beat Howard (Samford) in both the 1920s seasons with articles, and Howard was in the SIAA, the equivalent of the SEC. Cake (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 
@MisterCake: I was not trying to insinuate that there is something wrong with these articles at all, I am an inclusionist when it comes to college football articles. I simply meant to use Spring Hill as an example of season articles that some (as in not me) may want to AfD for one reason or another. Which is the reason that I believe we need to create some guideline, and burden of inclusion. -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)



Additional AfD rivalry articles


Hello all,

I have nominated two more rivalry articles for deletion:

Auburn–Florida football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Florida football rivalry)

Georgia Tech–Tulane football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech–Tulane football rivalry)

Please take time to review and share your thoughts on these discussions on the appropriate AfD page. Thanks again. CalebHughes (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)



I have stayed out of these discussions because quite frankly I do not care... however with the mass number of articles going up for deletion, it has me wondering if this is out of retaliation CalebHughes or if this was a consensus from part of a discussion? CalebHughes also can't seem to read up on how to properly mark an article for deletion, so I am asking that they stop until they learn how to. Corky 23:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


  • @CalebHughes: You may want to slow down on these mass nominations.  You are nominating some of the most storied rivalries in the history of Southern football.  The fact that a rivalry has ceased or slowed down in recent years doesn't change the notability.  Remember, notability is not temporary. Cbl62 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


Cbl62 They aren't necessarily the most storied, or even rivalries at all. However, you're certainly entitled to those opinions. You're free to share them on the AfD pages. That's why the AfD pages exist, ya know. CalebHughes (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)



I second that thought Cbl.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I have been (silently) watching all of this from the beginning. I jumped into this because, like you said, Caleb is trying to make a point (and it's the wrong point). We need to improve Wikipedia, not the opposite. Corky 00:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


@Cbl62: I think the first two bullet points at WP:POINT might seriously apply here, considering the AfDs on articles he created have been successful, for the most part, and his AfD nominations have been largely unsuccessful. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Comment for project. I admire CalebHughes' initiative and enthusiasm, which surely can benefit the project in the longterm.  And many of our current rivalry articles are poorly sourced/should go through AfD.  However, this new editor (120 edits) has created 8 rivalry articles with 2 already deleted, 1 in AfD, and most of the rest tagged re notability issues.  Today 9 (malformed) AfD discussions were created without making reference to WP:GNG.  Almost all of those articles seem likely to pass GNG. I had already posted on point to User talk:CalebHughes, requesting that they review WP:GNG (policy), follow WP:AFD (process), and generally slow down in context to learning more about wiki while becoming a more proficient editor -which everyone here understands is a process.  All of the above has spurred additional feedback on User talk:CalebHughes. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I went through all of User:CalebHughes's AfD nominations and tried to make them follow the standard protocol, though I'm not sure I agree with some of the articles being deleted. Retaliation very well may have been a factor. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Here is a convenience link to the edit history, re AfDs in particular. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


AfD on small college football coach


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otis Delaporte involves a small college football coach. He was head coach at Southwest Oklahoma for 14 years from 1964 to 1977 and athletic director until 1981. If you have views on this, feel free to comment there. Cbl62 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)



Another small college football/baseball coach at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Appleby (American football). Cbl62 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


AfD motive clarifications


Hello all,

It has come to my attention that some of you are concerned about my motives behind these recent AfDs. As stated in an earlier section on this page in a conversation with Jweiss11 and PCN02WPS in which I listed several rivalry pages I was concerned either weren't actual rivalries or didn't meet WP:NRIVALRY. While I am particularly disappointed that the UTEP-UTSA football rivalry page was deleted (I believe this is sufficient "notability" and enough evidence was presented to support the claim of a rivalry), my motivation behind the AfDs was simply to nominate articles I thought were "iffy" and could warrant deletion. There were no ulterior motives behind the AfDs and no revenge or retaliation.

I would also like to discuss another point. UW Dawgs appears to be going around to every rivalry page and putting in the "notability box". I'm particularly concerned with his putting the box on the Magnolia Bowl page, a rivalry with more than sufficient outside coverage, over 100 meetings between the schools, a trophy exchanged and a specific name given to the rivalry. I can understand a few of the pages he's tagged but there are several others he's tagged that I find questionable. The Magnolia Bowl page is the biggest complaint I have. I would like to know his motivation behind doing all this, as well as why he thinks the Magnolia Bowl isn't a rivalry.

I appreciate having the opportunity to work with y 'all. And I'm sorry if I caused any confusion or misunderstandings. CalebHughes (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)



Thank you for clarifying your intent, Caleb.  Even if there was some question as to notability, the articles you've created reflect good research and writing skills -- abilities that we need to continue improve Wikipedia's coverage of college football topics. If you have questions about a topic's notability (or if you want suggestions for useful areas for development), feel free to post here on this page.  The folks here are pretty good about offering guidance. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

As for the tagging of Magnolia Bowl, it is not accurate to say that UW Dawgs appears to be tagging "every rivalry page" for notability.  By my count, he's tagged roughly 30, which is about 10% of the rivalry articles.  If you disagree with any of these tags, "Help:Maintenance template removal" is a how-to guide outlining the steps to follow. In the case of a notability tag, the most beneficial step you can take is "adding citations to reliable secondary sources" showing that the rivalry at issue does in fact meet WP:GNG standards. Another step is to initiate a discussion with UW Dawgs on the article's talk page. If those things don't work, you can always solicit input here on this page as well. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


As I said on your talk page, I appreciate your response & clarification; your determination will certainly prove valuable to the project. I will also echo what Cbl said, if you need help with anything at all or have any questions, post them here - the users here are very helpful and knowledgeable. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


When tagged,[5] the article had a lone citation which was a primary source. Then, Verizon IPs mysteriously flooded the article with various citations including WP:RS issues.[6][7][8] I stand by my posts above (welcoming you to the CFB project) and on your Talk page (please read WP:GNG, WP:AFD, consider slowing down). UW Dawgs (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


FA/GA program articles?


I am only asking this out of curiosity, but why so many power five programs start class? Only Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets Maryland Terrapins football Washington & Jefferson Presidents football and West Virginia Mountaineers football are Good Article quality? I will openly admit that I have never made a run at GA/FA status so please don't interpret this as a shot at anyone and certainly not the project. But I would at one point we would have had a campaign to get those listed especially many power five programs. Just for reference here is the current "status" of the power five articles (plus service academies all at start class.)



  • FA: None
    • 

  • GA: Georgia Tech, Maryland, West Virginia
    • 

  • B: Arizona, Cal, Iowa State, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, USC, Utah
    • 

  • C: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Miami (FL), Mississippi State, Minnesota, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Oregon, Penn State, Purdue, South Carolina, Syracuse, Tennessee, TCU, UCLA, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Washington, Washington State, Wisconsin
    • 

  • Start: Arizona State, Army, Air Force, Baylor, Colorado, Michigan State, Missouri, Navy, NC State, Northwestern, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Rutgers, Stanford, Wake Forest


So are these (sub FA) ratings kind of arbitrary, (outdated based upon later edits)? What can be done to increase the quality of many power five articles? I am genuinely asking!--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)



At a high level, have you referred to the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment#Quality_scale?—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yes, I am aware of it. I know there is a process for GA and FA. I just have a hard time believing that many power five teams are at C or start class.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

As a project member, you can reassess any that are not accurate.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)








Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_21&oldid=1137389060"