User talk:Cbl62/Archive 2015

The rarity of southern players on Walter Camp's All-America first teams led to an apparent cliche, or conundrum, with the claim of "first Southern player chosen by Walter Camp." Strupper seems to get that title if I have reviewed the lists presented here correctly. Quite a few sportswriters who had surely watched football and read about it in 1917, seemed the first to put this label on Bum Day in 1918. Hm. Just a journalism cliche, "puffing" of a kind? Or just because Strupper was the second halfback chosen while Day the first center? Or is there an error on the 1917 page? Or something else? I'd appreciate if you shed light on my darkness; hope not too silly a question. Cake (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, the Walter Camp Football Foundation does not list a 1917 All-America Team, but includes the following notation: "All-America Team not selected because of World War I." (See current WCFF All-America Teams webpage here.) Our 1917 College Football All-America Team article lists Walter Camp All-Americans, as published in Collier's. The 2014 NCAA Records Book has an asterisk next to the 1917 entry for Walter Camp, with a footnoted annotation: "In 1917, Walter Camp selected an all-Service, All-America team composed of military personnel." The website that I have been using to view old Collier's articles does not include issues from before 1926. (See here.) This clearly bears some scrutiny because the NCAA believes that the 1917 Walter Camp selections were different from other years, and the WCFF doesn't even acknowledge them. If, as I suspect, Camp chose only players for the various Army and Navy service teams, such as the Great Lakes Naval Station football team, the distinction may have been lost on some newspapers in reporting what the selected players' colleges were vs. what service team they were playing for in 1917. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I found this December 13, 1917 article from the Oregon Daily Journal here, which lists an Auburn player in addition to Strupper. Interesting. And you will note the phrasing of the linked article: "Camp . . . has indicated his choice of an All-American Team this year will be made from the following players . . . ." The list looks preliminary, as it includes multiple players at all positions (except guard). Note the odd use of the future tense. I have yet to find a subsequent article through Google News Archive or Newspapers.com that explains this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And then we discovered the footnoted article from the Fort Wayne Sentinel used to source the 1917 "Walter Camp" selections in the Wikipedia article does nothing of the kind. Walter Camp is mentioned elsewhere on page 8, but the All-America team listed is the newspaper's, not Camp's. (See here.) Ouch. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Found it: consistent with the WCFF's non-listing of a 1917 team and the NCAA's 1917 notation in its record book, Collier's published a list of "All-America Service Teams" by Walter Camp in its January 5, 1918 issue. (See p. 32 here.) As usual, no Southerners were included among Camp's first team. I still can't explain what the Oregon Daily Journal was referencing in the linked article from December 13, 1917 above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So Camp didn't select an All America team, rather selected an All Service team, but then also published a team in Collier's Weekly reported by a Fort Wayne newspaper? I can't find the reference in the Fort Wayne paper. In fact I see only a paper published that week for the 28th not the 29th, and I didn't see any mention of football. What you said made a lot of sense, but then I haven't a clue what the wikipedia article is referencing. Page 47 in your Collier's Weekly seems to have some southerns as honorable mention, but Guyon is mentioned above Strupper. Cake (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cake, the Fort Wayne Sentinel is a head-fake/red herring that should never have been included as a reference. The All-America team listed in the Fort Wayne newspapers is not Walter Camp's 1917 college team; it's the newspaper's own 1917 All-America team. The words "Walter Camp" do not appear in the article, but they do appear elsewhere on the same page. Someone who added the footnote/citation to the 1917 College Football All-America Team article was clearly using a key word search that included "Walter Camp" and "All-America" and did not look to confirm that it was actually Camp's 1917 college list, which it wasn't.

Camp did not pick a college football All-America team for 1917; he did pick "All-America Service Teams" for 1917 (see January 5, 1918 issue of Collier's linked above). This is confirmed by the notations in the NCAA Records Book and by the Walter Camp Football Foundation's lack of a 1917 All-America team. The WCFF did not exist in 1917, but it does include all of the Walter Camp All-America teams prior to the formation of the WCFF as part of its lineage, and WCFF specifically states there was no 1917 team because of World War I (see WCFF webpage linked above).

All of which brings us back to Strupper and Bum Day; Day still appears to be the first-ever first-team All-American selected by Walter Camp (1918). As for the present Wikipedia article "1917 College Football All-America Team," it clearly needs to be critically reviewed and edited to strip out the inaccurate "Walter Camp" selections for 1917, and all other selections need to be confirmed using Newspapers.com, Google News Archive, and other available online searches. I think we also need to discuss what secondary selectors we include in our All-America team articles. In my opinion, we should not be including selections from the Fort Wayne Sentinel and the like. There were dozens of such minor selectors every year, most of which are of no historical importance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see even the newspaper's own All America team nor a newspaper for the date given, but that is interesting. I did not know such errors were left on All-America team pages. Will try to at least post a few if any proper teams on 1917s All-Americans talk page.Cake (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fort Wayne Sentinel article is cited, but not linked in the 1917 Wikipedia article; try this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this one [1] Search for Strupper's page, will say he was the first southern All-American.Cake (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MC, what's at issue is who was the first-ever Southerner who was a first-team All-American selected by Walter Camp. Camp had previous second and third-team selections, and undoubtedly there were a handful of Southerners picked as first-teamers before 1918 by selectors other than Camp. It's unclear from his GSHOF bio who selected Strupper as an All-American in 1917, but we know it wasn't Camp because Camp did not select a team in 1917. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know; was just to show I hope I had reason to inquire. The claim to fame is being the first selected by Walter Camp, yet one finds claims like that for Strupper along with it being said here (wrongly, I get it) that Camp picked Strupper. It looks like Day; McMillin, Roberts, Weaver; Fincher; and Bomar get to be called Camp's southerners. Cake (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Red Weaver wearing a codpiece in that photo?? Now, that's a physique. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently tied up on non-WP matters, but I noticed this discussion. If the footnote referencing the WC team for 1917 is in error, it was probably my error. I created most of the early AA team articles. If it is in error, it should be fixed. Give me a few days, and I'll check it out. If there is a separate WC All-Service team, it should be included and identified as such. As for limiting selectors, I favor inclusion with clear sourcing. (My preferred practice is to identify in bold the selectors recognized by the NCAA as official for consensus purposes.) For many years, Camp's selections are the only "official" selections, but they were highly controversial at the time and sidely regarded as biased in favor of the Ivy League and Eastern schools. Camp rarely attended games outside a 100-mile radius of New Haven, did not see most non-Eastern players in action, while led to angry calls in the Western press that his selections ought not to be regarded as true "All-American" teams. Inclusion of other selectors, particularly Western and Southern selectors (even though not used in the NCAA consensus determinations), helps present a broader and more balanced spectrum of historical points of view. More information is better. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The old AA pages are a long-term project that I started years ago. There are still a number of missing selectors that I was unable to track down. I have now ordered a copy of the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia which should be delivered within a couple weeks. Once I get that, I can also go back and start filling in some of the older holes. Cbl62 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1917_College_Football_All-America_Team Let me know how it looks when you get a chance. Thanks for the help dirtlawyer. Cake (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few newspapers mention Reynolds Tichenor as the first Southern player ever selected for an All-American by Walter Camp; I guess for a third-team or something, but see no mention of him anywhere. Might wish to double check to see if he ever got any mention. Cake (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This claims

Owsley Manier gets one of the two slots left. Any idea who was the other? Not sure I've one coming to mind. Cake (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like to get your opinion on this revised infobox template: [2]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When you have a few minutes, please take a look. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, I recently created Template:Southwestern Oklahoma State Bulldogs football coach navbox based on the 2014 SWOSU Football Fact Book. The head coach for 1909 is listed as "Adolph Schulz" on page 48. The timing makes sense for this to be Germany Schulz. I see that's already a GA-rated article and there's no mention of him at Southwestern Oklahoma State or Southwestern Normal, as it was known then. If you have a chance, can you take a look at your sources and see if you can confirm Schulz at Southwestern Normal in 1909? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see what I can find. Cbl62 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've copied over the 2004 team there. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I created 2005 independently, but inadvertently used a 2004 source. Doh! Fixing it now. Cbl62 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	College football barnstar
	Keep getting linking notifications from you making the useful All-Conference pages lol. Thx for your message on my page too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have started working on separate biographies of the rabbis of Wilshire Boulevard Temple. Is this something you would be interested in expanding, since you created the page? See User:Zigzig20s/Abram Wolf Edelman (the first rabbis of LA apparently, but still in userspace because I don't have enough info), Sigmund Hecht, and I am working on User:Zigzig20s/Harvey J. Fields. It would be fantastic to find their pictures/portraits somewhere in the public domain as well. Please reply on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated

1873 Harvard Crimson football team for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1873_Harvard_Crimson_football_team. Your input is requested; Been brushing up on early football and all the Harvard-McGill games were in 74. If memory serves, there are many of the older individual seasons confused for others and with multiple seasons in one. Cake (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Cbl, care to reconsider your !vote @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andenne Bears? I think a merge and redirect is a better option than an outright delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article under AfD simply repeats content already in the parent article on the league, and does not appear to add anything not already present in the parent article, I don't really see what is accomplished by a "merge". repCbl62 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"what is accomplished by a 'merge'"? Unanimity of !votes and redirects for the Andenne Bears and other teams in the league to the league article. Right now, this is headed for a split vote and a possible "no consensus" outcome. With a merge and redirect, the non-notable team pages will be deleted for the price of redirects to the league page. That's a pretty good compromise. Read the exchange between Brigade Prion and myself. FYI, the nominator has already changed his stated preference at my request. Let's Make a Deal, and get these eight team articles deleted (see the other nominated team articles from the same league). Remember: redirects are cheap! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was "merged" out of existence, Cbl. Please note that there are 6 or 7 other articles about teams from the same Belgian amateur league that are pending at AfD -- they're listed at the American football AfD category. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, here's a sneak peek at how the revamped infobox layout and design is going: Template:Infobox college football player/testcases#Joe Cool (typical example). Nothing has been finalized regarding parameters to be added or deleted, and I still plan to hold a mini-RfC on the template talk page to give all active WP:CFB members their say-so in determining. That said, what do you think of the colors, graphics, and layout and design? In particular, how do you like the "college varsity stripe" graphics? Personally, I think it looks sharp -- instead of the graphically primitive color bars we previously had. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CBl, follow-up in your area of expertise: defunct team mascot names (e.g., Stanford Indians). When you have some time, can you check this list @ Module:College color to make sure it includes all of the old mascot teams of which you are aware? With Frietjes improvements to the color module, we will be able to insert the era-correct nickname into the revamped infobox template, and it will display the correct team and mascot name and colors, but the link will redirect to the team article under the current team and mascot name. This is really good stuff. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tom Huiskens notable per GNG? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 2007 and incorrectly asserted that Huiskens played in the CFL. I did a few minutes of cleanup/expansion last week to whip it into somewhat better shape. (My effort was part of a larger, ongoing project to ensure that the existing 769 articles on UM football players, at a minimum, rise above the "embarrassment" level.) As for

Mlive.com (the Booth newspaper group in Michigan) does represent significant coverage in a consortium of mainstream, credible, statewide media outlets. Also, the 1967 AP article does deal with him in some detail as he was considered maybe "the best college football prospect in Michigan." He also gets some coverage in this history of the CFL. Injury cut his playing career short, and, unfortunately, articles from the Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, The Ann Arbor News, etc. from the 1960s and 1970s aren't available on-line (not even for a fee), and so a search of microfiche or hard copy newspapers would be needed to determine how much coverage he got. As you know, I successfully nominated a number of UM player articles for deletion in the past year. Huiskens is probably a borderline case, but I'd be reluctant to consider an AfD for Huiskens without more research. Cbl62 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Cbl, I was working my way through the 900+ articles that presently utilize Infobox college football player, doing some basic clean-up work on the infobox and lead. The overwhelming majority of the articles that use Infobox CFB player are not current jocks, but historical players who are CFHOF members, consensus All-Americans, or other major award winners who did not play pro ball. In that crowd, Huiskens does stand out as a "borderline case" -- which is why I asked. I am keeping a list of players to discuss later; so far, it's a pretty short list. Some of the weakest GNG cases are current players who ultimately are deemed notable by playing a few games in the NFL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Happy to discuss any candidates if you would like. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related, but different topic: how do you think the player's high school should be presented in Infobox CFB player? The pipe-linked display that follows the "Ann Arbor (MI) Central Catholic" pattern has not worn well with time since it was introduced in Infobox NFL player several years ago. I was never in love with it, and the use of U.S. postal code abbreviations and the creation of what is, in effect, an artificial name by pasting the city name onto the abbreviated school name is problematic. I'm thinking we should use a pipe-linked short-form of the high school name, just as we do for the universities, minus the city name and state postal code. In something like 95% of all cases, it will be linked for those high schools that have articles allowing the reader to instantly satisfy his curiosity, and the town where the high school is located should also be identified in the text. What say you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the informal RFC you posted at the beginning of the year, I cast my vote for completely eliminating the "high school" parameter from the infobox. If the consensus ends up being to keep the parameter, I'd need to think a bit more on how best to display. Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please give it some thought. I don't think we're going to get rid of it that easily, and it remains one of the issues to be resolved. When I re-open the RfC, I would like to resolve all formatting issues, so we can write definitive template instructions with comprehensive formatting examples. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Randy Logan, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Randy Logan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Seal, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Seal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cbl. I have no idea how the !vote of WP:CFB members on the CFHOF link will turn out. I know Jweiss and at least several others prefer no direct links in the CFB player infobox, and would like to see the CFHOF bio link moved to the external links section, along with a limited number of other featured links. That said, once Bagumba's sideshow merge discussion on the WP:CFB talk page is over, I expect to start the long-delayed RfC regarding the final parameters to be added/removed. Personally, I am indifferent whether we include the CFHOF bio link in the infobox or EL section; my biggest objection to including the link in the box, to the extent I have one, is that the existing electric yellow color bar is a graphically hideous design element. If we're going to keep it, we need to upgrade the link's graphics and eliminate the jarring electric yellow color. As a brainstorming idea, perhaps we should consider something similar to what is used for the Baseball Hall of Fame in the MLB player box -- a dark blue bar with a star or two on either side of the link. Anyway, please think about alternatives, because I would like to have two or three concrete ideas for the RfC so people understand what they are voting for. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DL, the MLB HOF banner evokes the Baseball HOF logo (http://baseballhall.org/sites/default/files/logo_8.png). If we're looking for a new design for the CFBHOF banner, I think we should pick something that evokes the CFBHOF logo (http://www.cfbhall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/logo.png). Jweiss11 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CFHOF log that you linked incorporates the Chick-fil-a logo ... corporate advertising ... hideous. Cbl62 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we evoke anything regarding Chick-fil-a, which uses a red and white logo for its main signage and marketing. I'm saying it may make sense to use the blue and gold of the CFBHOF logo, like how the red and blue fill colors and white stars from the Baseball HOF logo are used for the MLB HOF infobox banner. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the CFHOF logo you linked has a Chick-fil-a logo (not red and white) embedded into the CFHOF logo. Presumably, Chick-fil-a paid big bucks to have its logo embedded. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I don't believe the Chick-fil-a logo has anything to do with the blue and gold of the greater CFBHOF logo. The Rose Bowl logo includes corporate sponsorship, but that has nothing to do with the core red and green in the logo's main graphic, which is evoked in Template:Rose Bowl navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am all in favor of using a tasteful graphic device for CFHOF membership, either in the infobox or elsewhere, and I am open to just about anything that isn't an electric yellow color bar. That said, please recognize that the CFHOF logo, with or without the Chik-fil-A element, is copyrighted, or trademarked, or both, and, as such, is a non-free image subject to restricted use on WikiPedia. It would be one thing to use the non-free-image logo in the infobox for the HOF article, but transcluding it into 1,000 to 2,000 infoboxes for HOF members is going to set off a deletion war with Wikipedia non-free-image police. We caught shit for 18 uses of the Gator head logo; I can only imagine what they would say about 1,000 or more uses of the CFHOF logo. Sorry to be a wet blanket. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas, I'm not talking about using the logo. I'm talking about using the colors of the logo like we do in various team, conference, and bowl navboxes, and like the MLB infobox does with the colors of Baseball HOF logo. Is that clear? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for an example of what Template:Infobox college coach would look like with this sort of scheme: User:Jweiss11/Bo_Schembechler. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I can see that. Tough to object to neutral dark blue. No graphic devices other than the dark blue color bar? Also, can you reduce this to a single line of text -- e.g., "College Football Hall of Fame (1985)" or something similar? Does this mean you are waiving your previous objection to the infobox direct link? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DL, refresh the page by going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jweiss11/Bo_Schembechler?action=purge. The external link is gone and there is a gray border. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's graphically refined and relatively subdued in terms of colors -- should not conflict with new graphics of the CFB player box. I assume you would have no objection to using the same CFHOF graphics in both the college coach and CFB player boxes? Also, can you get it down to a single line of text? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same graphics in both infoboxes makes a lot of sense, so no objection there. I think the only way to get it down to one line of text is to reduce the font size. Given the relative importance of an HOF induction to any other accolade, I'm not sure two lines is really a problem. Keep in mind that the baseball infobox uses four lines for the HOF info. I think voting info is notable only in the case of the Baseball HOF, but even without that it would be three lines. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reduce to a single line I suppose we could edit the text to "College Football Hall of Fame, 1993" or "College Football Hall of Fame (1993)". Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or a spaced ndash. Or a teeny-tiny, tacky little football. j/k about that. I'd like revisit the graphics for Infbox coach, too, at some point this summer, after I've crossed off Infobox college football player and a new common infobox for all college sports teams. The player and team boxes will use the same colors and varsity stripe graphics, etc., but I can't use colors for the coaches because many if not most were associated with multiple teams during their careers, so we're not going there. I think we can figure out how to use black and a grey screen for the varsity stripes for the coaches, though, so it won't be a radical change -- really just upgrading the section headers within the coaches box. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, CFHOF voting info = serious overkill for an infobox. Less is often more. Most of these CFHOF bios don't even reference the HOF vote in the main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the CFHOF voting info. I only brought up voting to clarify the comparison to the baseball infobox. Let's never speak of it again! Jweiss11 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, I think in cases like Ray Baer, we should be using Template:Infobox college football player, not Template:Infobox gridiron football person. Right, @Dirtlawyer1:?

• We should, JW, but several of the template parameter names will change, as soon as Bagumba's "merge" discussion closes, to make them conform with the corresponding parameter names and order of Infobox NFL player. That's why I haven't been changing more of the existing uses myself. Rather than revisit the same articles multiple times, I would like to insert nice, clean new templates, with everything correct the first time, and then focus on getting the correct input data, in the correct format, rather than trying to fix the parameter names and input data piecemeal. After that "merge" discussion closes, say at the weekend, I'll open the RfC to vote on the final parameters to be added/deleted (e.g., CFHOF direct link, etc.); as soon as that's done, we will know the final form of the new template. There was an orderly process planned for this -- determining the parameters first, then doing the new graphics design package, then presenting the package for a final vote, but outside interference turned that planned orderly process on its head and forced us to do things out of sequence. This could have, and should have, been done in one-quarter to one-third of the time. So, for the time being, the new revised template for Infobox college football player is not ready for prime time, and I'm certainly not pushing it until it is. Patience is a virtue, or so I'm told. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wish that there was a single master infobox that could be used for all football players/coaches. There ought to be a way. It would make life a lot simpler. When starting a new player article, it's not always clear whether the player went on to be a pro player or coach. (Some sources indicate that Baer was an assistant coach at U. Louisville for a while.) This leaves uncertainty as to what infobox to use. In such cases, I sometimes choose the gridiron player box which seems to have greater flexibility. Cbl62 (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine for now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cbl. I just came across some of your handiwork from the 2012 Olympic year: Melinda Copp. Having previously worked through the American and Aussie Olympic swimmers, I'm now plodding through the Canadians A through Z, updating them to the current standardized version of Template:Infobox swimmer, and imposing a measure of uniform formatting on the 1400+ American, Aussie, Canadian and Brit Olympic swimmers for whom we have articles. There are 55 articles in Category:Michigan Wolverines swimmers, most of whom were Olympic standouts. While it includes its share of one-hit wonders, the category also includes some of the greatest Olympic athletes the Wolverines ever produced, and most of these articles really could use some in-depth work. Sources for Olympic results are readily available, and we have Wikipedia articles that fill in the swimming medal history for the Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games and Pan Pacific Championships -- it would be nice if we could build all of them into solid C or B-class articles with every factual statement footnoted, etc. Any chance you would be interested in helping? After I finish updating the Canadian infoboxes, I'm moving on to do the same thing for the 260+ British Olympic swimmers . . . it may be months before I circle back to the Woleverine swimmers again, but I'm certainly willing to help if someone else has the time now. Please let me know if you're interested and need a time-out from CFB for a week or so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I worked a bit on UM swimmers in the past as part of an effort to build out articles on the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor, but don't really have the time or desire to put a lot more effort into that area presently. Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [3]. Finally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

]

DYK for Matt Elliott (American football)

On 26 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Matt Elliott (American football), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Michigan's Matt Elliott went on to play four years in the NFL despite being "Mr. Irrelevant" in 1992? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Elliott (American football). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More is possible, but Çanakkale 1915 is now 2161 characters (358 words). . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And now... not only is it bigger, but it is also now out of AFD. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbl62. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Çanakkale 1915.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cbl62, it's been over three weeks without a response to the review. Please take action right away; otherwise, the nomination is likely to be closed in the next few days. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reply to your June 1 post that same day; please respond. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joe Cocozzo, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Joe Cocozzo played in the 1993 Rose Bowl, the 1993 Senior Bowl, and Super Bowl XXIX? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Cocozzo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbl62,

I see that you have previously uploaded several photos from the University of Michigan yearbook that are tagged as "PD-US-not renewed" or "PD-Pre1978" or both (which seems rather contradictory). Anyway, I see that there are many useful photos that you have uploaded under these tags, and my hope would be that there are many other college yearbooks out there from which photos could be used in this manner. It would be a major boon to college football and basketball on Wikipedia. Before searching yearbooks post 1922 for photos to add, however, I want to be certain that your methodology is correct in claiming them as public domain. I wanted to ask you about them first as the uploader, and then likely the community at large. There are several questions I have in assessing the copyright status of these photos.

• Are you certain that the copyright of the yearbook itself includes the copyright of the photos? Most yearbooks are a compilation. Could the copyright belong to a photography studio that took the photos? Were team photos even first published in the yearbook or could they have been published in a media guide or game program that was copyrighted? In specific examples, such as Bo Schembechler.png, A specific photo credit was given on 273 of the yearbook. Do we know with 100% certainty that the person listed there is not the copyright holder. If the answers to all of those questions are 100% certain, are the photos free enough to be called PD on Wiki projects, who seem to have strict definitions on the subject.

• Even if these photos are certain to fall under the copyright of the yearbook, is your methodology sound for determining that copyright was not renewed? Take for example 1923 Michigan Wolverines football team.jpg. The Stanford database you mention only seems to cover Class A books, and I would think that an annual publication such as a yearbook would not fall under the same classification that Stanford has cataloged. Second, The copyright office records prior to 1978 have not been fully digitized, so searching the online collection for renewals would not necessarily mean that no renewal occurred. Can we really be 100% certain that no copyright renewal occurred for these publications based on an online search.

Again, I sincerely hope that these photos are public domain, and this methodology can be extrapolated to make Wikipedia a much better resource, but I want to be 100% sure before adding anything post-1923 myself. SCMatt33 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SCMatt33: I haven't forgotten your question. I need to find a block of time when I can tackle it. Will try to get back to you soon. Cbl62 (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1995 All-Big Ten Conference football team, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1995 All-Big Ten Conference football team included two Heisman Trophy winners, Eddie George of Ohio State and Charles Woodson of Michigan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1995 All-Big Ten Conference football team. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 12:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I began an important issue that will affect the college football, basketball, and baseball projects. You are a regular editor within any or all of these WikiProjects and your input is requested. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#University of Texas Rio Grande Valley athletics. Thank you! Jrcla2 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly three weeks, and issues remain. Please respond there right away. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mike Teeter, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that American football player Mike Teeter won the Dick Katcher Award in 1989 and was named All-World while playing for the Frankfurt Galaxy in 1991? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Teeter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply