User talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2011 (Jul–Dec)

I can source that he had 2 tackles for a loss, but sources only mention one as being on fourth down (the sack on Persa), but the Adonis Smith rush for a loss of 1 yard to the Mich 33 on 4th and 1 at MICH 32 with Michigan trailing 14–7 is not noted in any stories I see.--

WP:FOUR) 10:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This one that is omitted, IMO, was the turning point in the game. If NW made that first down, they might have won the game.--

WP:FOUR) 11:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Tony, the play-by-play here ([1]) confirms Kovacs' tackle on 4th and 1 in the first quarter. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (2nd quarter BTW).--

WP:FOUR) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

What is your reason for removing the images from Template:University of Arkansas? Brandonrush (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main goal was to standardize the code for this template using Template:Navbox and set it to autocollapse. I think the images in navbox templates probably aren't the best practice because navboxes should really be about providing navigation through links with a minimum of other content and adornment. That being said, I'm not sure what the consensus is about including images in navboxes, so I have no particular problem with reintroducing the images, if it can be doing in a standardized way. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ive edited most of the top 25 college football teams. If you have a little time, could you check my work and see what you think? Thank you for your help. Rocketmaniac ^RT 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketmaniac, I took a look at a couple of these edits of yours. What you've done with the "Rank" column looks good. You also want to add the Coaches' Poll ranking in the "Opponent" column where appropriate. For example, on 2011 Virginia Tech Hokies football team, both rankings should be listed for Clemson on October 1. Thanks for you work on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea... Good point. This then brings up the discussion of the rankings listed in the Game Notes section? Dual rankings here? or if only one rank/poll... Which one? I think there were 2 "undo's". Rocketmaniac ^RT 17:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you've got something in table or list form, both major polls should be included side by side. In prose, the rules don't have to be as hard and fast. In the case that the AP and Coaches rank is the same, you should be able to get away with just "ranked #X" without specifying the poll. In cases where the two rankings differ, you may want to be wordier and more specific. I see there's been a lot of undos on this. We need to have discussion at the College football talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, has you might have seen..... ALL of my work was totally undo in 2 minutes flat!!!!. I wish an admin would jump into this conversation. Anyway, Im on a short vacation, spending time with my daughter for her 12th birthday. Besides, Im not in the mood to work anymore on these pages just to have someone undo it. This is why I posted a couple of "comments/questions" before I acted. I was afraid this would happen. Anyway, I will talk (well message)to you later, Randy AKA Rocketmaniac ^RT 18:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that your efforts got thwarted a bit. I working on sorting this out at WikiProject College football. I didn't think this would be such a hot issue and thought it has been largely settled already. Thanks again for your help. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are default, they are too easily confused with other templates like basketball AAs. E.g. in 1925, see

I don't think there's any justification to color them anything other than the default, per

WP:NAV. There are no applicable brand colors here. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_Clokey&action=historysubmit&diff=455199146&oldid=455198097

I would appreciate it if you could help undo his vandalism and possibly report him, as the page is edit-protected.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southhamptom (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jweiss11. You have new messages at OCNative's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks re: User:NCDane. I generally don't have issues with him as an editor, mainly because I haven't come across him before, but the agenda for the large bold font is so out there that I literally didn't know what else to say on the matter. I'm sure the college football core has seen their share of "wtf?" kinds of edits by new editors as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the large bold font is wacky. Seems this editor has a track record of not getting the point. Yeah, we've had plenty of wtf edits on college football. Here's a discussion re: one of my favorites from last year: User talk:ChaseFWilson. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a college football "state title" before. ChaseFWilson was probably some drunk Georgia Tech student trying to pad his school's coach's article. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to look at the big changes you've made to the template. I like many of the changes. Not so sure about others. Here are some preliminary thoughts:

• The one thing I strongly disagree with is the "Games" section. Putting these individual games in the template gives them FAR more prominence than they warrant. The one truly "legendary" game is the Snow Bowl, and if we wanted to include that in the template, it could go in a section called "Lore" which would be a rename of your "Pageantry" section.
• I re-inserted "Hall of Honor" in the "People" group. I agree with eliminating other groups (including Heisman winners, etc.) that are not separate articles.
• I do not agree with having a redlink for Bowl Games.
• I wonder if there's some way to code national championship years to look different in the "Season" section. It would be nice to have those seasons featured somehow.Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a post to the CFB talk page about this. Let's open up the discussion there to get more people involved. I understand your point about the red link to the bowl list. However, this article ought to be created, a la List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games. There's also a "red" link to List of Michigan Wolverines football seasons (though it isn't red in the navbox). Jweiss11 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the national championship seasons can't be highlighted, then they should be re-inserted as a separate group. Cbl62 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I know that you are test-driving this as a possible prototype for the new all-in-one CFB program navbox. Before this gets set in stone, I would urge you to reconsider the inclusion of the coaching succession in the program navbox. In college sports, the history of any given program is intimately tied to the coaches who have led the program, far more so than individual players. Impact players may start for two or three years; impact coaches can have tenures that run into the decades. Apart from a separate "history of" article, which does not exist for every college sports team (and even fewer outside of CFB), there is no better source for the program's evolution than the coaches' biographies. I earnestly believe the coaches' bios should be linked to the program navbox. I had been waiting to weigh in on this at the on-going CBB discussion until it had reached critical mass, and I guess it's now time to do so . . . . BTW, JW, there is no reason why exceptions cannot be made to the general rule that every article listed in a given navbox must transclude that navbox. I have long since rationalized this as team navboxes go on team pages, and coaching succession navboxes go on coach pages, and so on. I would ask you two to consider this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DL, this is a good point. I think this gap can be bridged with List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches, which is indeed in the main team navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JW -- You made huge changes to the navbox. I then made two changes, which you immediately reverted. This is supposed to be a collaboration, not JW's way or the highway. Your insistence on having things your is pissing me off big time. Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's leave the hall of honor link in for now. I wanted to keep the games links in so as to include them in the discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me yet again on individual "Game" section with the edit summary, We've decided they are important enough to have their own articles, right?" That's nonsensical. We've got articles about hundreds of things related to Michigan football that have no place in an overall template. How in the world is the result of the 2001 Michigan State game more important than (i) national championships, or (ii) coaching progression? ICbl62 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsensical. The point of navbox is not to summarize the most important point of a subject. Its purpose it provide links to the articles that exist about the subject. The navbox indeed has a link to the list of coaches. It also links to each of the Michigan's 11 nat'l champ seasons. We have an article for the 2001 Michigan State game. But we don't have an article summarizing Michigan's nat'l titles. Perhaps the Michigan State game should be CFD'd and merged into the 2001 season article? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I don't think the 2001 MSU game belongs in the overall template doesn't mean it should be deleted. Entirely different standards. There are lots of Michigan football articles that aren't linked (directly or indirectly) in the template (e.g., assistant coaches, athletic directors, or important figures like Don Canham, Albert Pattengill, Ralph W. Aigler, Charles A. Baird, and Keene Fitzpatrick). The overall template need not include every topic in the Michigan football universe. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these guys fall into a more nebulous "founding fathers" group or, in the case of Canham, are simply the Michigan AD, not to diminish the specific impact he had on the football program. In terms of bio articles, Michigan is far more developed that any other football program, thanks, of course, largely to you. I think if we delved into the history of any program, we'd find analogous guys like these Michigan ones. That all being said, my idea was to leave specific people off of the team navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point! I'm not saying we should put individual people on the template (with possible exceptions for current coaching staff and past head coaches). Just the opposite. I agree with the approach to not listing specific people. For the exactly that same reason (focusing on the bigger picture), we should likewise not be listing specific games. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to believe that you now "own" the Michigan footbal template. You have reverted five of my edits in the past 24 hours. This is not consistent with collaboration. Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with the last "revert" to reinstate the bowl games link? I created that redirect and tagged it as "Needed" class for the CFB project. Again, the larger point for right now was to provide fodder for the discussion, and to that end, find a place in the navbox for all articles for any given program. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a problem with the last revert (though the bigger concern is with the "ownership" conduct). We ought not to be linking to a non-existent article. And given that the main Michigan Wolverines football article already includes a complete list of the bowl games, I'm not convinced a separate bowl game list is needed. Cbl62 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who is guilty of the ownership. My posture has been one of using the Michigan template as living example in practice (for the time being) to foster discussion and allow us all to contemplate the range of possible articles that exist out there for any given program, and how we may best organize that set in a standardized fashion that services the whole landscape of college football and beyond. You, on the other hand, wield all sorts of subjective assessments that often function in defense of subjects you happen to have already invested a lot of time working on (not to diminish those efforts themselves, because they are great). You are the owner, especially when it comes to Michigan football, my fellow Wolverine-rooting friend. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I appreciate your hard work on college football articles, and agree with the vast majority of the changes you make. So of course, I'm writing about the exception: I don't think it's a good idea to remove the link to the main "mascot" article from the football articles. I've seen you make this change a couple of times, most recently, on the delinking of Stanford Cardinal from Stanford Cardinal football, and you might be intending to do it in more articles, so I wanted to discuss it first. It seems like either the infobox or the first line of the lede should continue to have that link. Both aren't necessary; it seems to me that people might come to the article to read about the football team, but would be interested in learning more about the general sports history of the school and/or the history of the athletic mascot. Currently there's no easy way to do that, and it's not obvious to the casual reader that such an article might even exist. We should figure out a place to provide that link to show the richness of the encyclopedia. Let me know what you think. --Esprqii (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esprqii, thanks for the message. Yeah, I've been cleaning up and standardizing a few elements including the infobox title field in the main program articles. I agree that a prominent link to the main athletic program article is useful, but it shouldn't be in the infobox title or the statement of the subject in the lead. Those should not be wikilinked. Perhaps a new field in the infobox or a hat note for those links? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

WP:MOSINTRO) but it could go soon afterward. At a minimum, I'd suggest that before removing the link, we should make sure that the lede paragraph contains a reference to the mascot article somewhere. The Oregon Ducks football

article actually does this pretty well. I think I'll add something similar to the Stanford article.

On a side note, most of these team articles get pretty messy past the first paragraph or so, being haphazardly puffed up by fans and devolving into long lists, tables, unsourced fan prose, etc. Any opinion on the best ones out there, or good models? That Oregon one, for example, goes on waaaay too long. --Esprqii (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weaving links to

Template:Infobox NCAA football school need some work. There is mention of external link usage in many of the fields. What kind of external links you would want there? The TeamName field in the example is dreadful: [[University of Mississippi]] (Ole Miss)<br>Rebels. Yikes. You're right about the team articles getting messy. There are many like I like parts of, but few that I think are really excellent top to bottom. Pittsburgh Panthers football has a nice history section, but I think the tables down need some work. I believe Washington & Jefferson Presidents football is only GA-quality team article out there. I've done a lot of work on Michigan Wolverines football. It doesn't really have a body, but the lead is good and I think the tables are pretty clean, though perhaps some should be broken out into their own articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That W&J football article is a really good model, especially with all the stuff that gets broken out (list of coaches, seasons, etc.) to keep the article focused. Might be interesting to try and get it to be a Featured Article, which might really solidify it as the gold standard for these kinds of articles. --Esprqii (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds looks a good idea. May be worth circling back with GrapedApe, who's been the main guy on the W&J article, about getting it to FA-status. Let me know if I can help. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you did something to Eddie Robinson that messed up the external links for find a grave that I put in. Can you please take a look at it and fix whatever you did or whatever I did. Thanks 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cool, thanks I just figured out how to do it 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Find a Grave link looks to be working fine. I just cleaned it up a little so it just displays "Eddie Robinson" without the parenthetical qualifier. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Templates are complicated for me 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Give me a shout if you need help or have questions with anything. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you uploaded a photo of Bill Daley. It's a great photo, but I'm not sure it meets fair use standards. Your rationale states, "There is no free alternative available, and the subject is deceased." I though Daley was still alive. If so, fair use may not be appropriate. Did Daley die? If so, we should add a date of death to the article with sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was a bit of slip-up on my part. I thought I read a DOD there, but obviously I was mistaken. Daley appears to be alive and well. I'm pretty sure I've seen a fair use image rationale for living people somewhere. But if I can't track that down, or if that's not kosher anyway, then this image should be deleted. Sorry for the messiness here. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't generally allow fair use images for living people, so this should probably be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a couple days to rack my brain and see I can dig up an example of fair use for living people. If I can't find anything, then let's delete it. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, I found an example and it's one of your uploads: File:Stan Noskin.png. Is fair use okay here? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough. I try to avoid uploading images of living people, as it's my understanding that our Wikipedia policies don't allow it. I don't recall my thinking on Noskin, may have been unsure if he was still alive. Also, there's some question as to whether the Michiganensian yearbooks from 1923 at least through the 1950s have fallen into public domain. Copyright renewal is required to keep it in place. I've been meaning to check into that at some point. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the legalese to open up the later Michiganensian stuff. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can do that. Let me know what you need, although the next week is gonna be kind of busy for me. SCS100 (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One clarification item needed. Do you mean the overall category in the first link, or do you mean every page within every category as well as the categories. I want to make sure I get this right. Thanks. SCS100 (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. The first one of the three that you gave me is complete, and I'll get to the other two when I have time. SCS100 (talk)

Awesome. Thank you! Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in finishing this, I was busy the last couple of the weeks. Anyways, all three of the categories that you gave me are complete. SCS100 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the timing. Great job. If you want more wiki-scut work like this, I've got more. :) And if you need my help with anything, just holler. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, new user Billcasey905 is a Citadel grad and has concentrated on Citadel football articles. He could be an unofficially signed up WP:CFB contributor for that school. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the heads up. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jweiss11/Archives/2011 (Jul–Dec)! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The consensus is pretty solid against linking routine terms like United States in biographical articles, particularly biographies of Americans. It serves no useful purpose. Overlinking like this is rampant. A good discussion of the topic can be found at

See also

WP:OVERLINK: "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." The United States is certainly a major geographic location. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The piping to "American" is different. But even in the Duncan article, that piping was added last month, years after the article received feature article status. Cbl62 (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate issues. The overlinking of a major geographic location is clearly contrary to WP:OVERLINK. On the second issue you raised, if you're looking for a less wordy way to build in the person's nationality, I don't have any objection to saying someone is "an American football player and coach." But saying "Joe Smith was an American football player in the United States" just doesn't read like professionally written encyclopedic content. It reads very poorly IMO opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't like the wording or the overlinking, as I mentioned. Two separate issues. The overlinking of United States is a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK, so I am fixing those. The wording issue is stylistic, and I'd ask you to reconsider, as it really does read poorly. Cbl62 (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK. You admit that you're okay with the link in the Duncan article. Today's feature article has a link to the subject's nation in its lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you we need to clean up the "crapfests." But this issue is clear. Major geographic locations are not to be wikilinked. That has been interpreted by some to prohibit links to places like "California" and "Texas." Do you think the "United States" is not a major geographic location??? Cbl62 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we have a link to "Austria" in today's featured article. And links to the "United States" in other FAs. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the issue is pretty cut and dried, but since you object, I've asked for input on the issue from the wikilinking experts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Cbl62 (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss, please do not link United States in such articles. It is rare for this item to be useful as a wikilink, and on rare occasions where a link might be useful, it should generally be to a section or daughter article of the United States. It's the English WP, and the native-speaking countries are expected to be commonplace, even among visitors from other languages. "Austria" is a borderline case: I'd usually avoid it unless such an unfocused article really is useful in a context. Tony (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is being lost here is that

What makes this discussion a wee bit interesting are the syntactical problems of stating the subject's American nationality in the same sentence where a link to "American football" is also present, so as to distinguish the American sport from soccer. To state the obvious, most of the rest of the English-speaking world calls soccer "football" or "association football." Personally, I don't have a problem piping the link for "American football" into "football," but some non-American editors get apoplectic about the need to display "American football" because they are convinced "football" is confusing to non-American readers. (These are the same folks that get all pissy about forcing American editors to use British style "logical quotation" in articles about purely American subjects.) Whatever. The piped link "American football|football" makes that distinction perfectly clear, as does the American context and such other descriptors as "NFL," "NCAA," "college football," etc. Ironically, in articles on which I've worked, the leads of all biographies about American athletes who play association football contain a piped link from "association football" to "soccer," in keeping with standard American sports usage and MOS's ENGVAR guidelines.

BTW, if we feel compelled to include a geographic link in the lede of an American sports biography, I have often used "Smith was a native of West Virginia," or a similar construction, reserving a more specific linked statement of the subject's birthplace or hometown (e.g. "Fairmont, West Virginia") for the "early years" section of the article. Bottom line: every biographical article should expressly state the subject's nationality per MOSBIO, whether it's linked or not. If the nationality is not linked for the reasons stated above, there are other geographical links that may be employed in the lede or body text, such as the subject's native state or region, hometown or birthplace. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If American football/er (as a single link) appears at the opening or anywhere else, whether linked, piped, or normal, the default is clearly that the player is American. If of another nationality, you'd say so, wouldn't you? (A Canadian-born player of American football?) You certainly don't need a link to the country article, either, unless to "[[Sport in Mongolia|Mongolian]]" or "[[Mongolia#Culture and sport|Mongolian]]". Give readers lots of overgeneralised link and piped choices and they'll probably pass on all of the invitations. Give them one in a statement and they might, just might, if you're lucky, click—I'd count on one in a hundred readers, or fewer. Probably less likely at the top anyway, since the reader has come to the article to read about that specific topic. This is why the more logical place for country-related links in bios is at the bottom "See also" section, where the reader is more likely to be ready to travel via links.

Very weird. I just noticed this diff in my edit history. It was made while I was at work today and not on Wikipedia. It looks like someone may have hacked my account. I have no idea how someone could have done this, but I will be changing my password to try to prevent it from happening again. Cbl62 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's weird. No worries on that one. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with having the NC years highlighted in the seasons grouping. The particular color block scheming doesn't look real good, but the concept is fine. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can access this article also? [2] May help to tie

I was just looking at that. Unfortunately, I can't access that article. One of the cited sources for

Highland Stickney say he was an All-American at Yale, but there's no Stickney listed in the Yale media guide (http://issuu.com/ivyleaguemanual/docs/yale-football-2009-opt). Jweiss11 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I just dug up the one for the Highland Stickney that coached for OSU - perhaps it's a misunderstanding? Haven't been able to find any association with the Hiland from Harvard to the Oregon coach, though. Something is telling me that this is probably a match, but I can't verify it yet. Maybe Cbl62 can access it, I'll try. – Connormah (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More confusion! An autobio by Dorothy Stickney, "Stickney"+AND+"Yale"+AND+"football"+-Harvard&dq="Stickney"+AND+"Yale"+AND+"football"+-Harvard&hl=en&ei=-nesTvupIYSeiQKZ57CMCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg says: "The two were Highland Orlando, who coached football at Yale, became a professional polo player, and died young of an athlete's heart. The other was Victor Hugo who went to Dakota Territory to be a doctor. " – Connormah (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, would be great to get at that Boston Globe article. It may solve the little mystery here. Let me know if you access it or find anything else. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a match. Since he died in Portland, Oregon, the Oregon coaching gig must have been his last, and he must have settled there...if only we could get confirmation... – Connormah (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now gone through dozens of college football coaching articles that use an opening sentence identifying the person as "an American football coach in the United States," here are my views.

(1) The formulation is not a model of either precision or concision. When you look at our best, feature level sports biography articles, none of them open with a phrase specifying that the person's coaching or playing career took place "in the United States."

(2) The formulation does not state the person's nationality. It merely provides locational information indicating that the person coached the game "in the United States." Where the lead otherwise provides more precise locational information on where the person coached, adding "in the United States" is unnecessary. See, e.g., M. Griffin (lead coneys that his coaching career took place in Alabama).

(3) There are some articles with "bare bones" leads where the "in the United States" formulation arguably has some utility. See, e.g.,

(4) Is it essential to denote the person's nationality? Probably not. Many feature level sports biographies don't mention the person's nationality in the lead –-

I respect and appreciate the effort you put into improving college football articles, and I'd welcome your help in trying to fix the articles that still include the phrase. Of course, I realize you may have other priorities. Cbl62 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to point (4) above, one other reasonable way of designating a coach's nationality can be found at George E. Pyle and Jimbo Fisher ("is an American college football coach and former player.") Cbl62 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, thanks for your comments here. The arguments that you and others have made have forced me to think about this item with a bit more rigor than I had before and reweigh the costs of the benefits of the "in the United States" phrase. As this point, I agree with you, more or less, that's it's safe to assume by default that an American football person is an American flourishing primarily in the United States, and so those attributes doesn't need to be explicitly stated. I think the "American college football" verbiage, a la the Pyle and Fisher articles, is okay as long as the subject didn't coach or play notably at another level. Even for a guy who coached only high school in addition to college, I'd prefer to summarize him as an American football coach. I also think that "American football" should not be piped to "football" in its first appearance in an article to dispel any ambiguity and since the word "American" is not merely a parenthetical qualifier, but has been deem to be titular element of the concept "American football". Finally, I think that the delinking of countries should be far more ecumenicial, i.e. not just applicable to the United States and other natively Anglophone places like the UK. For example, on the FA-rated Mariano Rivera article, "Panamanian" is still linked to Panama. Is Rivera's relationship to Panama any more germane in the lead than Ozzie Smith's to the United States? That's an issue I plan to take up at MOS Linking talk page. My top long-term priority is still to continue to sweep through coaching biographies and see that they have a clean infobox, record table, and other standardized elements, a decent, if brief, lead, hopefully a reference or two to back up some key facts, and that they are generally bereft of egregious garbage. So, I'll amend my SOP accordingly regarding this item. Finally, I appreciate your efforts to go out and implement your arguments on a vast numbers of articles this weekend. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jweiss11. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Connormah (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] - says he attended Butler in 1899 to 1904 and graduated Dartmouth in 1897. – Connormah (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MD degree was from Indiana Medical College in 1906 also [4] – Connormah (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to help. – Connormah (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson's was probably from a Draft Card - let me see if I can pull it up. – Connormah (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that

My guess is that item on rolltide.com is a typo and they meant M. H. Harvey. Will see if I can track down a DOD on Balliet. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to try to to get some info on G.H., thanks for searching for Balliet. He was a fairly prominent Princeton player, there's 16 pages of articles mentioning him in Google News... – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got Balliet's DOD - was harder that I thought - he died in 1960! – Connormah (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Nice job. Is that Lebanon Daily News article available somewhere online? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry - I asked Cbl if he can get it. – Connormah (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl's got the connect with the Mormons, huh? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the FamilySearch library that was LDS run? I scoured it and couldn't find anything...didn't expect the DOD to be as late as 1960, and records are thin at the time period. On a side note, I will be completely flabbergasted if I am able to find anything on GH Harvey or FM Hall of Auburn. – Connormah (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry was started by LDS guys too. I'm going to work on fleshing out Balliet a little with what we've got. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're up to a challenge, could you do searching for

F. M. Hall? I've only been able to find Harvey's full name and both of their alma mater. Morris I have found nothing. Good luck if you do decide to look... – Connormah (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Re'd Caraway on my talk. – Connormah (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add the Assistant coaches to the

Let me see if I can dig something up here. In the meantime, championship navboxes should go below head coaching navboxes, e.g. see my edit on Dave Leitao. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just seeing this and I am done with adding all the assistant coaches I could find. I do not understand what the proper ordering is for infoboxes. Some coaches separate out awards and championships and others have all their templates as one. I may go back and redo these all. I assume you are reading the CBB talk page and saw my complete report on the state of assistant coaches. It is not just Michigan 1989 that needs help.--

WP:FOUR) 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Positional tenure history navboxes and current positional navboxes should appear ungrouped. If there are more than two or three team, award, and honor navboxes, those should be collapsed into a grouping. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you put Basketball program boxes in this scheme (e.g.,

WP:FOUR) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There's push a push to purge these team-wide navboxes from bio articles. For now, in case like Hopkins, I'd leave it at the top, since its functioning to frame his current position. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about pro franchise boxes which include head coach succession boxes.--

WP:FOUR) 02:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Also I think

WP:FOUR) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If you see a franchise navbox paired with a head coach succession navbox for that same franchise, I'd delete the franchise navbox. I'd cleaned up all of the NFL coaches accordingly this summer when I upgraded the NFL coaching succession boxes to the form first developed for college football and basketball (full names, parenthetical years of tenure). Jrcla2 was working on getting this done for the NBA and had the green light from the NBA project, but I'm not sure where he stands with that. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you have a point about aesthetic value of grouping like colors together. But I think it's more important that we develop meaningful and systematic organization for the navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered all the assistant navboxes. The remaining concerns are

WP:FOUR) 03:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Very nice work on Clinton L. Hare. It's not easy fleshing out a full biography on a football figure from this era, and your work on this one is impressive. In my opinion, it rates at least one step, and maybe two steps, higher than the "C" status you assigned it earlier today. Although I'm not sure where (if anywhere) it's written, it has always been my understanding that we ought not rate our own work (unless it's a stub). Do you know if there is something in policy or guidance one way or the other? Cbl62 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliments. The countless bio articles you've written for old-time sportspeople have no doubt set a great example for me and others. I'm not sure if there's an official policy on assessing your own work, but it accepted, at least among the CFB crowd, that rating your own work as Stub or Start class as appropriate is clearly non-controversial. The Hare article seems C class, at least, to me, and I tend to lean toward the lower class when in doubt. I personally don't have a problem with editors rating their own work C or B class, as long it's done in good faith and that they defer to other editors who deem to change the assessment. Obviously, any thing higher than B class has to go through an official peer review. I'm hesitant, at least for right now, about pushing the Hare article past C class and going for a GA review because it seems somewhat in doubt whether or not Hare was the first head football coach at Butler. The Butler media guide lists a "Clint Howe" as their coach in 1887, 1888, and 1890. I emailed the sports info director at Butler about "Howe" really being Hare, and he basically said, "yeah, you're probably right, our old records are crappy". I routed this exchange to David DeLassus at the College Football Data Warehouse, and he if gives that Howe-Hare merger his blessing and edits his site accordingly, I'll rework the Hare article to reflect that. Anyway, this is the interesting stuff. I look forward to the day when he have all the fundamentals like infoboxes, tables, categories, and basic style elements, etc locked down and can all focus on the richer historical details. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of upgrading it. As you know, the richer historical deatils is the part I find interesting, moreso than the battles over style elements, and I really enjoyed the Hare article. Cbl62 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the problem, it was at a sports museum in my hometown and I actually believed it has closed. I know how that sounds but I 100% sure I saw his name on it.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckling. :) Yeah, we probably need some better evidence to keep it in the article. Allen does not appear in the list of all-time letterman for the Kansas football program: http://issuu.com/theyoungmc7/docs/football_guide. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of ellipsis

I noticed you edited Wally Weber to change certain cases where the ellipsis separated completed sentences to reflect only three dots. That is in error. Where an ellipsis separates complete sentences, the period at the end of the sentence remains. ... It is then followed by the ellipsis, with the result of there being four dots. See, for example this site: "If one or more sentences are omitted, end the sentence before the ellipsis with a period and then insert your ellipsis marks with a space on both sides. ... As in this example." Cbl62 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on the ellipses. That nuance sounds familiar, but I clearly forgot about it. What we had before wasn't correct either, four periods each separated by a space (. . . .). Jweiss11 (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what was there before was correct. Not all style guides agree on whether or not there should be a space between the dots within an ellipsis. See here ("Not all style guides agree as to whether or not the dots in the ellipsis should have spaces between them."). I was taught to have spaces between them, which is how it was done in the Weber article. If you're not sure about a grammar point, feel free to ask. Better to ask rather than just tinkering without knowing. Cbl62 (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I'll be sure to confer rigorously with you before making any future edits on Wikipedia...or anywhere. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, I do believe the ellipsis rules can be boiled down to these three basics: (1) generally, when omitting text from a quote, use three spaced periods (" . . . "); (2) when omitting text from the end of a quoted sentence, use four spaced periods (" . . . . "); and (3) when the omitted text follows a complete sentence, use four spaced periods, but omit the first space—this signals that the sentence preceding the ellipsis was quoted in full, but subsequent text is omitted before the quoted text starts again ("Weiss is not a details man. . . . He has many other redeeming qualities." See, that's not sooo hard, is it? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding too (as well as being how things were originally laid out in the Weber article), though some style manuals do allow for the ... without spaces between the three periods. My offer to help with grammar was sincere. If there's one thing my Catholic school nun/teachers were good at, it was drilling basic grammar rules into us. Amazing how effective the fear of the paddle is as a teaching device. Cbl62 (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, just point out the mistake if you see it. What I don't need is to be admonished about "tinkering without knowing". On Wikipedia, I'm one of the people who sets standards and answers questions more often than needs guidance. Your precious Cliff Kleen article was loaded with bad and out-moded formatting, which is understandable considering that you wrote it four years ago. Rather than your condescension and selective hauty-tautiness about grammar, I would have preferred something like, "hey thanking for unfucking all the garbage in that article, but you missed this one thing". Evidently, those nuns didn't teach you how to not be an ingrate. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a real gem. Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ron Kramer.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appleton A. Masin

Same person? – Connormah (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think so. I've got him dying in New York in 1938: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=FA0F12FF3F5F1B7A93C0AB1789D95F4C8385F9. Nice find. Jweiss11 (talk)

Censuses say he was born in Nova Scotia (Canada) too. Will see if I can get a DOB, I'm very familiar with Canadian sources... – Connormah (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering the same with R. R. Brown and Robert R. Brown... – Connormah (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've puzzled over that one before. Va Tech, UNC, and Wash and Lee seems like the same guy. Maybe the New Mex St is a different guy. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys. Do you have access to Census and or on-line genealogy records? I have a four deceased Gators football coaches who I've been trying to track down for two years: Jack A. Forsythe (birth date c. 1881), George E. Pyle (birth date c. 1886), Charles J. McCoy (no birth or death dates), and William G. Kline (no death date). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DL, I don't have any special access to any of that stuff. Connormah, the 1903 Va Tech yearbook list their coach for 1902 as "R. R. Brown, Darthmouth". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:James A. Baldwin.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Norman G. Wann.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John Magnabosco.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Paul "Billy" Williams.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:William Juneau.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Paul B. Parker.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lawrence McPhee.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yearbook description

Can you write a quick description at the top of the archived yearbooks page saying what it is and what it's intended for? People who venture there from WP:CBBALL (via Template:WPCBB) might not know why they're being redirected to a WP:CFB page, and I figured I'd probably word it incorrectly if I tried to write the description.

On an unrelated note, your talk page is getting pretty long. Time to archive some of it? :) Jrcla2 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been meaning to do both! Jweiss11 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Any chance you can do a search for any photos of Wallace Moyle, David Farragut Edwards, and Harry Orman Robinson? I have been able to find nothing... – Connormah (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I've been building a list of college yearbook archives here. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, that'll be helpful in the future. George Schildmiller is another I've had troubles with. – Connormah (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you'd like to have a look at W. B. Hopkins, it'd be greatly appreciated - seems he was captain of the Brown football team for multiple years, before graduating in 1896(?) - haven't been able to find a photo or first/middle names yet. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oosterbaan template sorting

I see you reverted my

WP:FOUR) 14:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, we need a inter-project powwow on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Samuel B. Newton.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ion Cortright.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tom Keady.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:George Hoskins.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bill Warner.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John J. Ryan.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Taylor (linebacker c. born 1990)

Thank you for moving the page I created to a better location. I have been trying to find when he was born (DOB) but have been unsuccessful. I see you found that he was born in 1990. Were you able to find is DOB so you or I can update his page? Thank you again! Carthage44 (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my pleasure. I've been meaning to drop you a note to thank you for cranking out all those Wisconsin season stubs. I moved the Mike Taylor article to ..."c. born 1990", as in circa 1990. I don't have a DOB or even an exact year of birth, but since he entered college in 2008 he had to be born around 1990 give or take a year or so. When we do find a DOB and have an exact year of birth, the article should be renamed again to reflect that. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am a huge Badger fan and enjoy updating/creating pages. Since I work odd hours, I have some time on my hands to update these articles. Once I do find his DOB, how do I rename the article? Creating pages is still somewhat new to me so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your time and help. Carthage44 (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Moving a page for all the detail regarding page moves. If you run into any problems when it comes time to move the Taylor article or any others, let me know. I'll be happy to help. You seem to have a good handle on creating new pages. All those season articles you kicked off are well-formatted. The next step is obviously to start building them out. If you want to start working on that, I'd recommend looking at the more developed Michigan and Alabama articles for examples on how to flesh out a good season article. I've done a lot work on the Wisconsin head coaches and they're in pretty decent shape, but many are rather brief. One thing we don't have yet is a List of Wisconsin Badgers football coaches, a la List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches or List of Alabama Crimson Tide head football coaches. That might be something you'd like to take on. If you have questions about anything, let me know. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Guy Lowman.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Whitey Wistert.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Bell (American football) main image

Are you aware that there are bots that delete Fair Use images in living people infoboxes?--

WP:FOUR) 01:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I was not aware, but clearly those bots should be stopped if fair use images are indeed appropriate for living people. Moving an image from out of the infobox, a la Gordon Bell, is not a good solution. Which bots are you talking about? The image at Stan Noskin has been fine for months. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer an issue.

WP:FOUR) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I see the new image that Cbl uploaded. Cool. I'm still curious about these bots. If you can identify them, please share. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Barclay (baseball)

Yes, I agree that simply (baseball) is not particularly appropriate in this instance, but the alternative of using (American football/baseball) that's been the compromise usage on other pages (see

WP:BRD process had resolved itself. -Dewelar (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, the "American football/baseball" qualifier is pretty infelicitous and "sportsperson" seems a little too broad. I understand the concern about the middle initial perhaps being too obscure to use in the article name, but we do have one source, the obit, using it. If we can find a few more sources referring to "George O. Barclay" would that make my initial page move okay? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would depend on whether the sources were related to his sports career, which is the source of his notability. Otherwise I think (sportsperson) is probably the best way to go. -Dewelar (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feh...on further review, we already have George T. Barclay, another American football-related figure, which means we might be stuck with that ugly hybrid qualifier after all. -Dewelar (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved

George Barclay (baseball). Jweiss11 (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

True, and I see that using the initial there seems justifiable based on the sources, so we should be able to use (sportsperson) after all. -Dewelar (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Krzyzewski

What's your problem with the link to that 5-minute ESPN interview? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For biography articles, external links sections should only contain official sites and links to definitive listings. If you allow one-off articles and interviews, there nothing to prevent those sections from becoming unmanageable laundry lists. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. I thought it was an insightful interview - coach and mentor, and their relationship as such is very evident on-camera. Maybe it would be better placed in the body of the article where it talks about Knight? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure it's good content in it's own right. Admittedly, I have't watched it yet. Perhaps, it can go in as a reference to support some new content to the body of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, just to make things clear, when I said "vandal" in my edit summary and "a jerk" on Bugs's page, I wasn't talking about you, Jweiss--I was pointing to this joker. Later, Drmies (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, no worries. Something funky happened with all the edits crossing wires at same time. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no picking on the drive-bys. That's my schtick. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for you to watch it. It's only 5 minutes, and says a lot about them in that short time. What struck me was how deferential Coach K was to Coach Knight; willingly deferential, I would say. Very much "old school". I don't think my observation needs to be made explicit in the article, though, as that's up to the viewer's judgment. Maybe something more "encyclopedic", like how Coach K regards his coaching efforts as an "extension" of what he learned from Coach Knight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Go ahead and see if you can work something into the article about Krzyzewski's relationship with Knight and I'll let you know what I think. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the part where it talks about breaking Knight's career record. I might be rah-rah on my talk page, but I try to keep things low-key within article text. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Nice work. I did a little clean-up of the wording in the section and put the link to the video and its accompanying article in proper citation form. The article as a whole could use a little work. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Duke, the last couple of minutes of the game, needed a little work too. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Claude J. Hunt.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:M. B. Banks.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Evan O. Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Evan Williams

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Williams Newton.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox help

At 2011–12 Chattanooga Mocs basketball team, in the infobox it has a link to Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball, but since they use "lady mocs" for their women's teams, the article it should link to is Chattanoog Mocs basketball. I can't figure out how to change it. I feel I may simply be making a silly omission but I can't seem to find it. Help is appreciated. City boy77 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. I'm looking at

Template:Infobox NCAA team season and it appears that the template has no way to turn off that men's/women's qualifier once you're in basketball mode. This issue has been brought up in the past on the talk page but it remains unresolved. This is worth bringing up at the college basketball project talk page. You might want to kick off a new discussion about it there. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Joe Bedenk.png

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vacated victories

Thanks for your comments. If you have any thoughts to add at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories about how vacated victories should be annotated in affected articles, please throw them into the mix. I think it'd be good to lay this all out and gain a consensus so that we don't have to suffer any more ad hoc solutions. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be in a position to edit much over the coming days and leave the handling of the "series record" footnote to your good judgment. As you can see I added a link to the essay at the UM-OSU rivalry article. I don't think it's necessary at this point, really, but it's better than a long footnote that only scrapes the first layer of the issue, I think. JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to keep things in order. Hopefully, Michigan can finally win one on Saturday and make at least the question of OSU's streak a moot point for the infobox. Happy Thanksgiving and enjoy the holiday weekend. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding in navboxes

Fair enough. I hadn't realized that most of the college templates had the bold.--Yankees10 01:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to remember

Jweiss, do you recall who the editor was that would keep creating new "People from (city), (state)" categories, and then when populating them, would move that category right next to the categories for years of birth and death? I'm asking because of this edit that popped up on my watchlist.

is unquestionably the same user I am trying to recall. I don't want to bring this to a formal SPI if the username change was approved, but I do want to get to the bottom of it. The user who I can't remember had been left myriad notices and requests to stop placing the People From categories at the start, ignoring all alphabetization, and I'm wondering if Corlier is avoiding scrutiny with this sockpuppet. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure it's only one editor doing this. I recently left a note for User:Monegasque about the same thing. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AP Poll matchups

WTF. That table tells a lot about the history of Michigan football rivalries (official and unofficial) in a succinct format. I would like to see these types of tables for all major football and basketball programs. It quantifies the OSU and ND rivalries especially well.--

WP:FOUR) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh man. Maybe something like this belongs somewhere, but definitely not where you put it. Let's get some other people to weigh in on the idea. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)For rivalries that are geographic/historic these tables may not be as relevant. For some schools that is all that they have. However, for many major rivalries this adds some detail. I would like to see these numbers for Duke Basketball and see the Duke-UNC line.--

WP:FOUR) 06:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you mean having a discussion at

WP:FOUR) 06:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

3RR, apology

I just re-reviewed the Three revert rule thoroughly. I didn't realize that I was prohibited from making any unrelated edits. For whatever that's worth. I'm done on that page indefinitely.

talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, no worries. I worked back in those additional references you had bulleted together, now separated out and all in the notes section. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry templates

Maybe you didn't notice, but I was curious about why we want to set policy for conferences that they have different types of templates. Please respond at the discussion on this matter because I am unaware of any other policy where we encourage different template structures for the power conferences.--

WP:FOUR) 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

TFD notice

Template:Infobox college rivalry

WP:FOUR) 02:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Infobox college sports rivalry

Hi,

Please explain why you reverted my edits to {{

Infobox college sports rivalry}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It killed the alignment of the team fields and introduced a strange bullet between the team names. The idea here is to have two logos side-by-side with the team names below them. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "killed the alignment". The bullet-like character (actually small CSS background image) is the standard separator for horizontal lists, used in thousands of Wikipedia templates. My edits removed the situation where "team 1" is in one table column and "team2" in the next; unlike the subsequent table rows, they're not a header:data pair, nor are they headers for their respective rows. If the team names are meant to be captions for the images, perhaps they should be rendered as the caption property of the image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The teams shouldn't be considered a horizontal list and they shouldn't be separated by bullets. In setting up the template, I was aiming to mirror the alignment of

Template:Infobox college football single game. See 2006 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game for an example of it in use. You see how in that template we essentially have the top of the infobox split into two parts with one side of each team? That's what I was going for here as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your reply. To take your points in order:

The teams shouldn't be considered a horizontal list

Why not? The list of teams is just that; a list. See

WP:HLIST

.

they shouldn't be separated by bullets

Why not?

the alignment of {{

Infobox college football single game

}}

Achieving such a visual appearance does not require the misuse of table markup, as in your preferred version of the template currently under discussion.

Also, I still don't understand how my changes "killed the alignment". Please explain. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits made the team names bunch together in the middle of the infobox. The desired alignment is to have each team name centered on it's own half of the infobox. That's what I mean by "killed the alignment". As in the case of {{

Infobox college football single game}}, the team names should not be considered to be two elements of a list. They are, rather, each an element of a multi-dimensional array that runs vertically. The two vertical arrays are placed side-by-side, one for each team, with each team getting its own half of the box. If you could explain how these infoboxes are misusing table markup so that they can be fixed while retaining their current form, that would be awesome. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Tim Kish and Rich Rodriguez

Why did you remove the navbox? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 10:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I assume you are talking about Template:Arizona Wildcats football navbox? It's been established per WikiProject College football that program-wide navboxes are not appropriate for transclusion on biography articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alvin Wistert.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michigan State Spartans football navbox

In your edit did you intentionally remove the overall record or did that accidentally happen during the reorganization? If you did remove it intentionally, why? Spidey 104 14:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey104, that was intentional. The purpose of a navbox is to provide navigation. Overall record is a non-navigation element. The inclusion of overall record in navboxes has been a really bad habit and their removal is long overdue. I'm working on standardizing all of the college football program navboxes accordingly. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Have a good day! Spidey 104 21:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to navbox

Hello, Jweiss11. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks -> Webfoots

Good call on those page moves. It's been on my list to change for a while but I hadn't gotten around to it. One of my stumbling blocks was trying to figure out when they were more commonly called Ducks than Webfoots. The Oregon website is no help; they seem to be covering up the history or when the "official" mascot changed. But it seems that well into the 50s and 60s, Webfoots was still used quite a bit. Did you find a good source for the mascot change dates?

I think the

1938–39 Oregon Ducks men's basketball team has to change as well, but contemporary reports always seem to never refer to the mascot. --Esprqii (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

--Esprqii (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to nail down the date of the name change exactly, but this page at the Oregon website suggests it happened around 1932: "Headline writers searching for ways to parse Webfoots into their sports pages began churning out Ducks, which the students eventually voted as their new nickname over Timberwolves and Lumberjacks. A second student-body election in 1932 beat back the challenges of Trappers, Pioneers, Yellowjackets and Spearsmen..." Not sure exactly when that first election took place. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think the Oregon AD has done a cut and paste of Webfoots to Ducks over the years. I can't tell if it's outright whitewashing or unintentional. Most newspapers articles I've read say that students picked Webfoots in that vote: see from 1976,from 1978, and from 1995. From those, it sounds like Webfoots became semi-official in 1926, and Ducks didn't come into use until the 1940s, and became sorta kinda official in 1978. Prior to 1926, there was no official mascot (Stanford, and I'm sure other teams, has a similar history of mascotlessness). As late as 1995, judging from the tone of that article, the term "Ducks" was still controversial. --Esprqii (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...although I should add that my own

WP:OR would say that Ducks was the common term in the 1980s. --Esprqii (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Vandy 2011

Hey can you look at the first part of the Vanderbilt football 2011 and edit it? It seems that it does not read well. Mickey Sanker 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave the 2011 Vandy article a little work. I think it's in decent shape now. The verb tense is a little tricky because I'm not sure if the season is over yet. I guess it's still up in the air whether they are going to a bowl. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Team navboxes

With the list whittling down, I will handle Wyoming, NC State, Memphis, New Mexico, New Mexico State and UTEP. If I have time for more I'll let you know! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks. I'll aim for the other ones. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely help out as much as I can as time permits. I will work from the bottom of the list as you suggested. Patriarca12 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox sorting

Re: your edit to June Jones - is there a specified order that coaching navboxes should be in? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. First go the team coaching tenure navboxes, chronologically. Then the current coach by conference navbox. Then any championship and award navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 20:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...

I'm reading now that ASU's talks with Jones have fallen through. I really shouldn't have bothered making the changes until everything was confirmed. Whoops. In any case, I've reverted my changes to the navboxes, but you've made some significant changes to Jones' article since my changes, so I'd rather not just blanket revert everything and screw up your work, so I'm just letting you know so you can make the adjustments. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Well, the infobox needed a lot of cleaning up and the lead was too sparse. It didn't note any of his previous head coaching tenures in college and the NFL, which is certainly should. If the ASU hiring falls though, that should just be backed out. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:159.53.46.141_reported_by_User:JohnInDC_.28Result:_.29 JohnInDC (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin "Yogi" Ferrell

Is it common practice to create articles for high school seniors who commit to Big Ten teams? There is an article that's been written for

Kevin "Yogi" Ferrell and I really don't think he's reached the point that he's notable but want to get a second opinion. Perhaps he is notable and I'm just plain wrong. Afterall, "Yogi was ranked the number one player in his class as a fourth grader." City boy77 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If I may offer my outside opinion, I don't think he's notable enough. Any high-level college recruit has the same number of ESPN/Scout/Rivals/recruiting service pages. You could put together the same kind of page for any of them. I just don't see anything that makes this guy special. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a question of level of coverage. I agree that we should not be make making articles for every recruit listed on rivals.com. But if a given high school player has garnered significant, feature-type coverage in non-local media, he may well be notable. This sort of thing has to be assessed on a case by case basis. If you feel Ferrell is not notable enough to warrant an article, you may want to bring this up at the college basketball talk page or even open up an AfD. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Byron W. Dickson, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Germantown, Pennsylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of historically significant Michigan Wolverines football games

I saw that. I was initially skeptical, but then found it to be a good template to use in listing some of the major milestones in the development of the program. If it doesn't survive as a list, you, I or someone else can preserve the information for use in a Michigan football history article. BTW, thanks for your help tidying up the Andrew G. Reid article. Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rivalry

So you'll accept discussing OSU NCAA sanctions but not Michigan NCAA sanctions. Why don't you just admit your bias. I'd be willing to accept discussing both teams sanctions or none, no bias there. What are you afraid of? Is there more to the Rodriguez story? Something more along the scale of the massive cheating the basketball team committed in the 90s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.16.120 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear where the bias lies on this issue. I have no idea if there is "more" to the Rodriguez story. I haven't done any special investigation into the matter. What I do know, and what is clear from reliable, cited sources, is that the Tressel scandal was the reason for his resignation and the end of the most dominant coaching run in history of the rivalry. Also, given Ohio State's attendant vacation of all of its wins from the 2010 season, the OSU scandal figures into the series record of the rivalry. The OSU scandal is therefore orders of magnitude more germane to the subject of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry than are Michigan's violations from practicing too much in 2009. Your presence thus far on Wikipedia has essentially been a one-issue political plug to drag Michigan's less grievous and less germane violations down to the level of Ohio State's on the high-profile venue of the rivalry article. If you wish to pursue such controversial aims on Wikipedia, I suggest that you establish yourself with a stable user name and complete at least of modicum of non-controversial contributions beforehand. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michigan Wolverines football helmet.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Mtking ^(edits) 03:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Montana Grizzlies football

Your assertion that it is in-line with the wiki project guidlines might be the case however

Mtking ^(edits) 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Mtking, I was just about to drop you a message on your talk page about this and your fancruft tags at Michigan Wolverines football, LSU Tigers football, and Texas Longhorns football. The Montana Grizzlies football article admittedly needs some work and more sourcing. But the head coaching history table is certainly notable enough for inclusion. This is rather standard information for college football and other sports teams. In fact, many of Montana's head football coaches have articles, they are just not wikilinked there; see: Template:Montana Grizzlies football coach navbox. It is likely that notability will be established for every one of the red-linked individuals in that template as well. I'll take a closer look at the #37 Jersey section to see if reliable sources can support that. In the meantime, a source tag there would not be inappropriate. The fancruft tags at Michigan Wolverines football, LSU Tigers football, and Texas Longhorns football are rather egregious as the sourcing on those articles is much better than on the Montana article, and since those teams are as well-covered by third-parties as just about any team in North American sports. It appears that you placed those tags not because they were warranted, but rather to try to prove a point (and not a very good one) in your discussions with User:Dsetay. This is rather unbecoming behavior. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim L. Mora

Is it a convention in college football articles to link to the university e.g. University of California, Los Angeles instead of piping the link to the schools football program, e.g. UCLA Bruins football. I would think most readers would be interested in the football program first; from that link, they should be able to get to the university's article. Apologies in advance if this has already been discussed ad nauseum.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, there's no strict rule here. My general strategy in coaching bio articles is to link to the university articles first, then weave in links to team articles after. Whatever the linking strategy, the emphasis should be on the getting the language right first and then have the wikilinks flow off of that language as appropriate. I didn't see this at the Mora article, but one thing I can't stand is when the university name is spelled out in full and then piped to the team article. If one is talking about the university (and this may make sense especially when talking about hiring and firing because that happens at the university level), then that's where the wikilink should go. As for the infobox, standards dictate without question that links go to team articles, not the university articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I spoke too soon. My pet peeve just happened at the Mora article. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sounds like a good convention would be to mention the institution first (e.g. University of California, Los Angeles) and then mention the team name later (e.g. UCLA Bruins).—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion

I don't know if you are still watching

WP:FOUR) 18:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Kansas State

Why was the Kansas State Wildcats football navbox changed so dramatically? There was nothing wrong with the old format and it is very similar to many of the other teams' navboxes. Topgun530 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topgun530, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Team navboxes for the full discussion regarding the ongoing standardization of team navboxes. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Bell

After months, I have finally found the Bert Bell and the Union Club of Phoenixville smoking gun that proves he was not a player, its here: Canton and Union Play Here Today and Bell was the head linesman. I have utterly blasted (out of frustration) the Union article so it may need to be toned down. But Bell, formed an independent professional team, use the further reading links in Bell I have found, in the fall of 1920 but due to the Black Sox Scandal he decided to disband it. All of that stuff in the Union article is close to being true, but is not true.

I need your help because I do not want anyone saying Bell played for Union without a citation.

I am removing the Union template from Bell, and I am removing Bell as a player from the Union team also.

It's very difficult to disprove something that someone just threw out there and I've spent dozens of hours trying to cite an uncitable event. Thanks in advance.

P.S. keywords on searching are Maxwell (wow, what an interesting character), and Thorpe for 192066.234.33.8 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

after having to deal w claims that Bell played for Union and not being able to substantiate it, I now feel better by destroying the Union article. It's actually not that far off base. But I do not want it landing on the bell article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College football season category header

Are you able to edit Template:College football season category header so that it correctly links to the Category:1910 NCAA football season through the Category:1955 NCAA football season‎? I don't know how to do this. As it is now, those categories are red-linked in the header because the template is set up wrong. The links for the 1869 to 1905, and 1906 to 1909, are different as well. Thanks for your help. Cmcnicoll (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I figured out how to fix this. I had to edit {{CFB Seasons Cat Header/Name conv}}, which is called by {{College football season category header}}. I cleaned up the season category naming conventions over a year ago, but never realized this piece of code was out there. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina Pirates football navbox

Does {{East Carolina Pirates football navbox}} need to be tweaked to conform to the other team navboxes? I'm asking because I see where you edited it numerous times on December 8th but didn't change anything around. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, badly. I'm getting to it. I was just cleaning up the categories to get everything in one place before. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry

Thanks for all your editorial assistance. I have nominated this at

WP:FOUR) 17:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Forest Evashevski.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AA navboxes

A lot of these will need to be moved if historical accuracy per naming convention is a goal of WP:CFB. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm still mulling over the right naming, but "Division I FBS" is clearly being misapplied here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, I've just finished adding 11 new All-American navboxes (1969, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995). I am aware that the navbox names should follow the actual NCAA "major college football" designation applicable in the given year. Rather than wait on getting the proper era names reconciled, I followed the established naming pattern of the other 38 existing AA navboxes when I started. TonyTT, Bender235 and SigEp252 ground out most of this first group of 38, spanning the 1920s through 2011, but with huge gaps in the sequence; obviously anything from the 1920s through 1970 or so that references "Division I" is clearly anachronistic, let alone "Division I-A" and "FBS." I wanted to make a dent and complete the sequence for the more recent AA's, and the 11 that I added completed the AA sequence from 1978 through 2011, an unbroken span of 34 seasons. All of the applicable player articles (1978 through 2011) have also been tagged with "Category:All-American college football players," so there are now 900+ player articles in the category. Please consider this my initial contribution to the consensus AA project; I am happy to help more once we get the proper navbox name sequence resolved. Based on the discussion I've been following over at the CBB talk page, it appears the interior format of the AA navboxes may evolve, too. FYI, Aquamelli just added a cluster from the 1890s today, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the consensus AA navboxes from 1890 to 1924... I'm ready to fill in the rest (late 20s to early 70s) but I really dont think putting "NCAA Division I FBS College Football Consensus All-Americans" works at all... I'm going to stick with the same naming convention that I used for the 34 that I created. If this is going to be a problem, please let me know Aquamelli (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Division I didn't exist until 1973. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had some extra time early this morning while waiting on St. Nick, and did a little reading on the NCAA website and elsewhere regarding the evolution of the NCAA's division structure over the years. Here's the timeline for the "major college" sports divisions:

• 1956–1972 NCAA University Division (University Division was for major college sports; there was also the College Division for smaller college sports programs)
• 1973–1978 NCAA Division I (essentially the renamed University Division for major college sports programs, but with the further breakout of the smaller colleges into Division II and Division III)
• 1979–2005 NCAA Division I-A (a further subdivision of Division I into two subdivisions I-A and I-AA for football only);
• 2006–present NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (renamed Division I-A for football only)

There apparently was no formal distinction between major and minor college sports programs before 1956. That's the NCAA division history in a nutshell. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 was the first year of the "FBS" moniker. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Oddly, the NCAA's website gives 2007 as the first year of the "FBS" subdivision designation (see [5]), but a Google News Archive search shows that "FBS" was already being phased into use by the media during the 2006 football season. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NCAA's records suck. The College Football Data Warehouse and its unidentified sources are far more reliable. ;). Merry xmas. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: College baseball navboxes

Recently got up to more than half finished on Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference baseball venues, and thus made the navbox. Tried to follow your example here, but I thought I'd pass it by you to see if/where I messed up. On the categories especially, I haven't the faintest idea what's going on. If you could take a quick look, I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. Kithira (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did a pretty good job. I just tweaked the colors to match the other Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'll make a mental note to keep conference navboxes uniform from now on. Kithira (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fred Sefton.png

Thanks for uploading

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

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hola

Jweiss, from interacting enough with you in the past I know that you're less hot-headed and better at explaining things than I am. If you could please drop some knowledge at Talk:San Diego State Aztecs men's basketball#Notable players and more lucidly explain the situation I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm being accused of misinterpreting a policy (I'm not) and am being told I'm 100% wrong (it's the opposite actually). I would keep going with the discussion there myself, but frankly he won't listen to me at this point and I'm sure I'd just end up straying from the main argument anyway. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team navbox consensus?

You do not have consensus on the issue of CFB Navbox templates being forced into a strict standardized format. Please wait for proper Wikipedia discussion policies, RfC, and dispute resolution processes to run their course. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should sit tight for now and let others weigh in. As a measure of temporary compromise, I think we ought to leave things as they are for now, i.e. the Pitt navbox "standardized" with the succession boxes on the venue articles restored. Sound good? As for gathering input for others, we should try to keep it all in once place. The RFC you put out directs people to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I hope you know this isn't personal. I'm generally a great admirer of your work. I'm just on the side of having some customizability retained, not only for templates of the CFB wikiproject, but those of completely non-related templates. I hope you are having a great holiday. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that we press for resolution of these matters after the holidays, gentlemen, assuming you can both wait a few days. Right now, most of the usual CFB/CBB project editors are either barely active or mostly inactive; comments at the CFB talk page have dropped off significantly in the last week or so. I think the more editors that participate in an organized discussion and polling/voting, in which everyone has their say, the more likely we are to evolve a stable consensus that everyone is willing to abide by. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with holding things off a few days until after the new year. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Keith Allen (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Student assistant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open queries

I have open queries at CFB: 1. Consensus AA template renaming, 2. Rivalry template progress.--

WP:FOUR) 05:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Some Washington templates

Not sure what you want to do with things like Template:1984 Washington football and Template:1990 Washington football. I found these while standardizing the templates, and they are kind of inaccurate since the national champions for those years were BYU and Georgia Tech, respectively. — Moe ε 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds on those two. Washington's "nat'l titles" in '84 and '90 are not widely recognized. Those two navbox should be TfD'd. I'll put that on my to-do list. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry infobox

Thank you.--

WP:FOUR) 18:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

James H. Horne

Thanks for the compliment! I was going to start an article for "J.H. Horne", then I noticed you had already created

Location (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Michigan–Michigan State ice hockey rivalry

Have a look at

WP:FOUR) 07:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2011_(Jul–Dec)&oldid=1142470812"

• Toggle limited content width