Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

First thread

Hello there, I'd like to start a discussion about this project's standards for creating single season football team articles. The project's page says: "Single seasons can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage (see

Wikipedia's notability standard for single sports seasons says: "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." (emphasis in original) and "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article."

And yet there are single season articles for Nicholls State from 1972 to 2011.** All have the bare minimum of prose, just the intro sentence, the coach, the field, the conference, and the season record. The only sources used for these articles are media guides and foxsports.com listing of schedules. There are zero reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the season. By the standards of this project and the guidelines of Wikipedia, none of these articles should exist. Of course, Nicholls State is just an example. I'm sure there many more like it.

Now, I know this project has a fetish with creating season articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign. And I'm not expecting many articles to be deleted as a result of this. But maybe the project can come to a consensus to stop creating such articles and use actual policy guidelines in deletion discussions. Perhaps the project can work on merging the ones that exist into groups of seasons - provided that there are reliable, independent, significant coverage of the group of seasons.

* Routine says "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

** Most of the more recent ones aren't any better, just longer. The only sources are about the coach changing.

The project has done amazing work, congratulations. And I am completely in favor of season articles for programs that receive significant coverage. But I think it has gone a bit too far in this regard. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Not all team seasons are created equally. Why not have single season articles only for FBS teams? Or for teams currently in FBS? I don't know why we're creating season articles for the Little Sisters of the Poor when programs like Ole Miss only have half their seasons accounted for. Lizard (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Simply put,

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Long version if it can pass notability, and can be well structured include it. If it doesn't we need to discuss it. I really don't care if Nicholls has a season and Ole Miss doesn't (yet!) as long as we do it right. By no means am I or the editor who created it, saying that NSU is MORE important than Ole Miss. But frankly somebody wanted to make it. But I am tired of all of the "basic cookie cutter (blah blah bare minimum stuff)" and declaring "Mission Accomplished." Waiting for an editor in 2067 to fill it out with stuff we easily could have done but didn't in haste to crank out something.UCO2009bluejay (talk

) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

While I'm personally not a fan of WP:NOHURRY (since it somewhat defeats the purpose of the article importance rating system), I do agree that quality should take precedence over quantity. Which is the main reason I haven't taken part in the season articles campaign. I'm never satisfied with the "bare minimum." This bare minimum approach has resulted in countless AfDs of team season articles over the past couple years. Lizard (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

NOHURRY is an essay and NOTCOMPULSORY has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is notability. "if it can pass notability" Exactly. Single season articles are NOT presumed to be notable. So, reliable, independent, significant coverage is needed to prove a season is notable. That means the coverage has to be added to the article at its creation. (BTW, Lizard, loved the LSP reference. My pee-wee football coach constantly told us we couldn't beat the sisters, but we never got the chance to prove him wrong.) - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no current policy or guideline that says the sources that prove notability have to already be in the article. Per

WP:DEL-CONTENT: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page".—Bagumba (talk

) 09:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a current policy that is directly on topic for this discussion about the notability of articles, which is the

WP:NSEASONS that people arguing against my points ignore. Season articles are not presumed to be notable. Notability can only be shown, it can't be simply talked about. And it is shown by reliable, independent, significant coverage. If I brought a particular page to AfD by challenging its notability, then that notability must be proven by showing the sources. You don't get to just say I think its notable, we have time to improve it, other articles exist, etc. Those arguments are just excuses to create and then abandon non-notable, stats-based articles. Which is exactly what has happened here. On your quote about editing policy, first it is not about the notability of the article. It's just a pretty milque-toast prescription to avoid bad deletions. Second, that is a very big "if" and it can't just assumed to be true. Just above that sentence, a listing of reasons for deletions says "#8 Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." That's the point I'm trying to make. To say again, I'm not looking to delete scores of articles, and agree that national power FBS teams deserve all their seasons to have articles and maybe even all FBS teams. What I am arguing is that the season creation project has gone way overboard, has completely ignored clear policy, and should be reigned in. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk

11:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My contention was that your 18 November statement of "That means the coverage has to be added to the article at its creation." is incorrect. I did not state that seasons are inherently notable. There is no question a lot of AfDs could be avoided if the sources that demonstrate notability were already in the article; however, there is no current requirement for that to happen. Blindly nominating those types of articles for deletion would not be in the spirit of

WP:TBAN.—Bagumba (talk

) 13:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

NCAA Division I football team season articles are notable. It's been taken to AfD, and it's been proved notable

Arkansas Razorbacks football, 1900-1909, which have been all but exorcised from the encyclopedia within the past year or two), and is badly in need of revision. Ejgreen77 (talk

) 14:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree that several of the programs listed here under "Historically important programs" are suspect. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of criteria for inclusion there other than people's personal feelings about the importance of the program. In terms of routine coverage, please see this: What is and is not routine coverage. As far as CFBSEASON, I would revise it to say that NCAA D-I seasons (FBS & FCS) are notable. Sub-NCAA D-I (NCAA D-II & D-III, NAIA, etc.) seasons are notable only for national championship teams. That would bring it up to date for what the reality is on how we are doing things on the project today. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, sounds good, and I agree. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there are a number of programs included as historically significant that probably don't warrant that title, but the Detroit Titans are not such a case. Aside from being recognized by Parke Davis as the co-national champion for 1928 (see 1928 Detroit Titans football team), they were a major program for decades, with Gus Dorais and Dutch Clark serving as head coaches for many years (Lloyd Brazil was also a player and AD for many years), a number of All-Americans (including CFHOF inductee Vince Banonis), Al Ghesquiere leading the NCAA in rushing in 1940, Ted Marchibroda going on to a lengthy NFL career, and the program's membership in a major conference (the Missouri Valley Conference) and conference championships in 1949, 1953, and 1955. I have done the research and can verify that the Detroit Titans football teams did receive substantial, non-trivial coverage before the program was disbanded in the early 1960s. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Forget AGF this is extortion because he wants his 1992 external link. It may be a valid conversation but the pretext matters See here.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh my word. You've got to be kidding me. @Jweiss11: makes a joke and I respond and now it's extorsion. Get over yourself. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd still say FCS is a stretch. Nicholls is FCS. If you can find non-routine sources and write significant prose for 1983 Nicholls State Colonels football team I'd consider changing my mind. Lizard (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Finding the sources is one thing, but accessing them may be another matter entirely. A quick search of newspapers.com turned up what look like many articles from 1983 in Louisiana papers about Nicholls State football, but they're all paywalled (and at the level that the Wikipedia Library accounts can't access). I suspect this is the case with pre-2000s seasons for a lot of teams; plenty of media coverage, but most of it's in sources that are hard to get at these days. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources for the 1983 Nicholls State Colonels football team [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] (This one is the same article, it stretched to two pages. [15][16]) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Only the first two look beyond

WP:ROUTINE, and barely. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk

01:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, and most of them are from local papers. You could probably find similar coverage of upper division high schools in the state. Lizard (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I fear this whole thread is my fault. Pretty sure I was the one to add the "historically important programs" with the intention of adding those neglected, former major and maybe a few minor programs. There was no FBS and/or FCS in those days, but that seems analogous. If they happen to be Division III or NAIA or something obscure today, I would emphasize that they are under the "historically important" section because of their history. Say NYU doesn't even have a football team today. There were some recent AfDs for those in the Minnesota section, which was one of the hardest ones to do. I was motivated to create articles for Hamline and Carleton because according to some research about the
  first game in each state, both are some of the very oldest football teams. Cake (talk
  ) 16:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't on my part. The problem isn't just former great powers with defunct or small division teams today. Those are probably a minority of the questionable seasons created. Sorry Chico State, but the Wildcats have always played in Division II type conferences and were never a national football power. I did get interested in this issue due to Hamline and Carleton's first season articles. I'm a Carleton football grad, which is how I noticed the article in the first place. I was very curious about why there was template full of red-linked season articles for Hamline, a Division III school with a one sentence tautology for a football team article.

The List article you linked is a perfect example of the right way to document the minor points of early collegiate football. That info is truly notable and the form it is presented in provides a ton of knowledge without clicking on tons of links. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Cbl62 weighs in

As the initiator of the season article campaign, this is a topic I would normally weigh in on more thoroughly, but I am traveling for a month in South America without reliable access to Internet except on rare occasions, of which this is one. My views as follows:

• We should at a minimum have a presmumption of notability for all historic seasons of Division I FBS football programs. As Ejgreen noted, the basis for such a presumption has been established in multiple AfDs.
• Below the FBS level, there are many current and historical programs where season articles make sense. However, I am not sure that a presumption of notability is warranted for lower levels, including FCS. In such cases, the article creators should take the time to ensure that there is adequate, non-trivial coverage to support the creation of the articles.
• I concur in Lizard's comments about the lack of complete runs for top level programs, including many Power Five schools. If people are looking for ways to contribute, I would suggest picking a Power Five team to complete.
• I agree that WP:CFBSEASON is outdated and needs revision.
• As for the concerns raised about the mass creation of "half ass" season articles, I also sympathize. Many seem to think that one sentence of prose with a schedule table is adequate. In keeping with the notion that Wikpedia is not a stat book, we should be more focused on prose than regurgitating a schedule table that is already available on many other web pages. IMO a recommended minimum for article creation should include the following basic information set forth in prose: (i) the team's record for that season (including conference record where applicable), (ii) the name of the head coach and the year of his tenure in that position, (iii) where the team finished in national rankings, if applicable, (iv) where the team ranked in its conference, if applicable, and (v) the results of any bowl game, where applicable. At the next level of importance (not essential to article creation but nice to see), I would rank (vi) identities of players winning major awards, including Heisman and All-America, (vii) where available, the team's statistical leaders in rushing/passing/scoring (readily available on SR/College Football for the past 60 years for most programs), (viii) identity of team captain(s), and (ix) totals of points scored and points allowed.

Those are my general thoughts. Cbl62 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'll just stipulate that all FBS season articles are notable. For historic, FCS and lower, this is well and good, and I agree with Cbl62's general thoughts, ... but. Everyone in this thread fails to even mention actual WP policy,

Chico State Wildcats football (which doesn't even have a team page!!!), I would make the following suggestion for CFBSEASON: require the team's article to be at least of start quality before groups of seasons articles are created. And require several groups-of-seasons articles to be start quality before every season in the program's history is created. Sound reasonable? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk

02:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's another procedural idea. Create a "List of X football seasons" article before creating all the season articles. If you want to see a great example of how season articles should look, head over to List of Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball seasons. A couple of random seasons, 1910–11 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball team, 1932–33 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball team, and 1969–70 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball team. It looks like they have a great resource to draw from, Georgetown Basketball History Project, but they used the resource really well to write prose. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to Mnnlaxer's above points:

• As Bagumba noted above, there is no requirement that articles be fully sourced before they are created. Nor is there any policy basis for a rule that several articles in a similar class must reach "Start" level before others can be created. I would favor an attempt to establish "recommended" elements for article creation, but I see no reason to alter Wikipedia policy to create new restrictions on article creation.
• As for WP:NSEASONS, bear in mind that NSPORTS (of which NSEASONS is part) is an inclusive standard intended to identify topics where a presumption of notability is appropriate. Topics that don't meet the NSPORTS standards may still have articles if WP:GNG is satisfied. My suggestion is and has been that a presumption of notability is warranted for all historic seasons played by programs at the FBS level and that lower level programs can still support season articles so long as GNG is satisfied.
• NSEASONS applies to all college sports, not just college football. Most college sports in the US (field hockey, lacrosse, water polo, cross country, tennis, golf, soccer, etc.) don't receive sufficient coverage to warrant the same systematic approach with single season articles. However, college football is in an entirely different league when it comes to coverage (indeed, even for the first four or five decades of the NFL's existence, college football received more extensive coverage than the NFL), and season articles for college football seasons are far more likely to pass WP:GNG than any other college sport.
• As for Chico State Wildcats, I previously ran a couple test cases and found the articles to be borderline, but within the realm of reason, when it comes to WP:GNG. See, e.g., 1953 Chico State Wildcats football team where I did some quick, preliminary investigation and found press coverage that appears sufficient to pass WP:GNG, some of which was added to the article. Rather than attacking Ocfootballknut, I'm inclined to applaud their diligence in spending several months creating articles that go beyond mere one-sentence stubs and which fill out a realm of college football that has not previously received this type of systematic, comprehensive, and encyclopedic treatment. Cbl62 (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. My suggestions are just that, a rule of thumb rather than a policy. I disagree about Chico State, but I apologized to Ocfootballknut. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, can't resist. The 1953 Chico State refs are all

WP:ROUTINE coverage. Very unlikely it would pass WP:GNG. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk

07:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Cbl62 (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think it's time

It has been a couple weeks since I threw down the notability gauntlet and since the discussion stopped, nobody's done nothing to revisit Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. I won't participate in that discussion, but my hope is that it comes more in line with encyclopedia-wide Wikipedia:Notability standards. (College football is great and all, but it's not so special that it gets to decide its own rules). In general, I would hope the season content is encouraged to start in the program article, move to coach-era based articles, and only then make single season articles. And the over-riding principal is to avoid articles that aren't mostly well-sourced prose. It's a perfect time to do it, everyone's pumped up but there aren't great games for a while. So, go to it boys.

Oh, and it's not just a season article issue.

I'm cross-posting for more eyes a query I received on my Talk page last night. The discussion centers on a set of additions to certain sports rivalry articles (example here). The additions didn't appear to be reliably sourced (as well as a bit spammy) and I undid a series of them in October. Anyhow the posting editor has asked perfectly reasonable questions about it and I figured it made sense to throw the issue open for broader discussion. (IMHO the project doesn't meet

Hi John,

I am a college student working on an Independent Study centered around sports rivalry research, known as the Know Rivalry Project. The purpose of our research is to gain an understanding of fan perceptions of sports rivalries. A little over a month ago, I created an account and made edits to a series of college football rivalry articles that cracked our top 10 rivalries according to our research. The edits/additions to the posts were removed due to them appearing to be for promotional purposes. Please know that was not the intent of my professor and I. We believe that our research has value, and that it would be interesting to fans reading about the rivalries.

We would like to post the additions about our research again, and we have edited the section I would be adding to remove any appearance of the posting being for our personal gain. Again, we just think that fans reading the articles would find the information interesting. Below, is the edited piece that I would be adding. Would you mind reading it for me and letting me know if it would be acceptable? I just don't want to post all of them again and have them be removed, or action taken against my account. I've also included the citation that will be used in the post, as this research is peer-reviewed, and for academic purposes.

Edited post detailing the rivalry research for the Top 10 most intense rivalries, according to our research:

In a survey of thousands of fans, the [Team1] versus [Team2] rivalry was ranked as the [ranking in most intense or most unbalanced list] in college football, with [most intense or most unbalanced rivalry mentioned] topping that list. The study was operated by students and faculty at Northern Kentucky University, and measured fans’ perceptions of rivalries by providing survey respondents with 100 “rivalry points” to allocate across their favorite team’s opponents (Tyler & Cobbs, 2017). Specifically in this rivalry, [Team allocating most points] fans allocated [#] of their possible 100 points to [Team2], while [Team2] fans reciprocated with [#] of their 100 rivalry points towards [Team1]. **By aggregating the mean rivalry points allocated by each team’s fans within a rivalry (200 points maximum sum; [sum] in this rivalry), the survey results allow for a comparison of the intensity of rivalry feelings within a matchup and across teams’ opponents.

Please forgive the unedited portions, of course I would include the information such as teams involved in any post I make.

This is the edit to the above for the Top 10 most unbalanced rivalries, according to our research (all the rest will remain the same):

By computing the difference in the mean rivalry points allocated by each team’s fans within a rivalry ([difference] in this rivalry), the survey results allow for a comparison of the balance of rivalry feelings within a matchup and across teams’ opponents.

Finally, here is the citation we will be using:

Tyler, B. D., Cobbs, J. (2017). All Rivals Are Not Equal: Clarifying Misrepresentations and Discerning Three Core Properties of Rivalry. Journal of Sport Management, 31 (1), 1-14.

Again, I appreciate your help. We would love to add this information about our rivalry research to these articles, and we hope (my professor and I) that you can help us make sure we do so while staying within the Wikipedia rules. Thanks!

Lukena4 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

JohnInDC (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this site before. I don't think there's reason to believe it's not reliable. But there's

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE concerns. A google search of "Know Rivarly project" brings up very little (if any) results for it being discussed in reliable secondary sources. So at the moment they seem to be relatively obscure; we're not talking FiveThirtyEight here. I say either leave these edits out, or limit them to maybe one or two sentences instead of dedicating a whole section. Lizard (talk

) 14:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Lukena4 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There are people here who try to keep things close to sources, and make sure that the sources are sound - it's Wikipedia's policy after all - but there are so many pages that it's pretty easy for junk to work its way in, and (sometimes) stay for a good long while. Nature of the beast I guess. As to this project, I have to observe that Wikipedia really isn't intended as a vehicle for publicity or "spreading knowledge" or anything like that - really what we try to do is to summarize things that other, established, reliable sources have already said about a subject, things that are already knocking about and warrant mention here. The comment above may help illustrate the problem in this case. Just assuming for a moment that the underlying research is sound, and peer-reviewed, and undertaken by competent practitioners and all the rest - well, it's still obscure. I know it's been covered in a lot of places but really it's kind of a one-off item in each case, a kind of "look at how our [local] fans think of [our rival's] fans". It just strikes me as, I dunno, spotty. And again Wikipedia isn't the place to leverage the viewership into an expanded audience; indeed if a student's purpose is to publicize something that seems under-publicized - well, Wikipedia's precisely the wrong place for that. The entries here come after that's been done, not before it. Now - all that being said, that's just me talking, and with your explanation, I hope other editors will weigh in and we'll see what the consensus is. Thanks for the note! (Oh PS. You really need to create your own account. They frown on multiple uses of the same account here and as harsh as it may seem, your student's account may wind up blocked for even an innocent transgression.) Let's see what others say. JohnInDC (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

____________

Cobbsj1 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC) First, thanks for your very prompt reply and allow me to quickly demonstrate one manner in which this research is applicable--above on this page in a different stream is a discussion of IF Michigan State vs. Ohio State is a rivalry worthy of note; according to MSU and OSU fans in our study, you rightly concluded it is not (MSU fans allocate 4/100 rivalry pts to OSU, whose fans recipricate with 0.25/100 rivalry pts). Second, I apologize for the transgression in etiquette and you’ll see I now have my own account, Cobbsj1 and the coauthor of the rivalry studies in question, as you recommended. Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. You seem to be suggesting that not only must the topics listed in Wikipedia be well publicized and of the public interest, but also the information included in entries must be well publicized enough to show up in a Google search, for instance (per Lizard reply on 11/30). However, that is not how I interpret the mission statement of the Wikimedia foundation, “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, I see your point as related to the bar of public prominence needed for Wikipedia topics/pages, but we are not seeking a Wikipedia page for Know Rivalry, nor do we think it has earned such designation. We are simply trying to disseminate empirically-based educational content regarding a topic (sports rivalries) popular enough to maintain several different Wikipedia entries. The fact that our cross-sectional rivalry research is on such a topic that garners enough attention for many different Wikipedia entries does not—in my opinion—make our research “spammy” or “spotty” (though please note that I appreciate the frank dialog). On the contrary, we have taken great pains to collect data from all these different fan bases in a manner suitable for academic peer-reviewed acceptance, and then analyze it by dyads (individual rivalries) across thousands of possible team vs. team combinations. Do we have distinct data from different fan groups across many different rivalries? Yes. Has some of the media coverage focused on specific teams of most interest to the outlet’s readers? Yes, but I do not see how these factors make the research spam or spotty. While I understand your concern for publishing obscure content (which I’m still not convinced this qualifies as such), it seems somewhat strange to me that you would not welcome empirical, academic research results legitimized by multiple peer-reviewed journals and covered by media outlets such as WSJ as acceptable content within Wikipedia pages dedicated to that exact topic. In some ways, such resistance and insistence on wide dissemination of information as a qualification for inclusion on pages reinforces the skepticism of the use of Wikipedia as a reference source (i.e., wide dissemination by secondary sources in today’s digital world does not necessarily qualify information as legitimate). If the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform users of the most widely disseminated information about the most noteworthy topics, then I am not sure how its purpose differs from that of search engines, apart from compositional format. That being said, I remain encouraged by the source investigation you have demonstrated, though I respectfully question the preliminary judgment here. Lastly, I hope this response is not taken as overly argumentative. I have rather enjoyed the back-and-forth of frank discussion and consideration, and appreciate your willingness to engage and consider the issue in the framework of Wikipedia’s purpose as an informational platform for public. Cobbsj1 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.—Bagumba (talk

) 08:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What does everybody think of this edit and several others like it. Is there a policy we've been violating or an editor putting their own editorial preference in the schedule tables. @Jweiss11: @Corkythehornetfan: @Lizardthewizard: @Bagumba:. Do any of you know?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS:POSTABBR states that postal abbreviations for states "should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text", but I don't think that a schedule chart qualifies as "normal text". Cbl62 (talk

) 18:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ping doesn't work when you add it into an old message. The Ping must be accompanied by a new signature/timestamp. And Colonies Chris is pretty much the only one I ever see making these edits, and I'm pretty sure he was responsible for someone bringing up this topic at least once before. Is spelling out state names specified in the MOS? Lizard (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Its been a while. I'm a bit rusty.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS:ABBR also says abbreviations are OK in tables if space is tight. But space doesn't seem that tight here.—Bagumba (talk

) 19:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba. Plus, I've never been a fan of abbreviating the states in the first place(!) and more recently I have been spelling out the months in the tables. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 23:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The schedule tables are crowded already, and we should be looking for ways to make them less dense, especially avoiding modifications that force the text within cells to crawl to a second row. A schedule table where the cells don't crawl is far more readable. One thing Colonies Chris has been doing to ameliorate this problem is to eliminate the state altogether when the site is a major city like Miami where the article title does not include a state (e.g., this diff). However, the conversion of state postal codes into full state names has, in many cases, forced the "Site" cell to push into a second row. See 2002 Temple Owls football team, 2006 Rutgers Scarlet Knights football team, 2002 Marshall Thundering Herd football team, 2003 Marshall Thundering Herd football team, 2012 Nevada Wolf Pack football team, 2002 Ole Miss Rebels football team, 2001 UMass Minutemen football team. Both of the policies cited (MOS:POSTABBR and MOS:ABBR) say that use of abbreviations are fine in these situations. Cbl62 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The standard formatting for the table is city with the state code, even for cities like Miami, where the state is not the article title, which should include the state code for tabular consistency. @Colonies Chris: we need to finally all get on the same page here. Can you please join this discussion? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Florida Gators football team sched table is wrapping on my phone, even with FL being used. Perhaps the wrapping solution is just to carriage return the city and state onto a separate line.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to clarify that expanding state abbreviations isn't the main purpose of my recent changes, it's just one part of a larger set of improvements, which includes: removing piping on stadium names so that redirects can work as intended; replacing the use of the {{

Carter-Finley Stadium --> Carter–Finley Stadium

); and many other minor fixes.

The general WP attitude to abbreviations is that there are a few (such as US, UK, NATO, EU, etc) which are always acceptable; the rest are OK to use when space is limited. That isn't the case here. It's pretty much meaningless to say that a change has forced a table entry onto two lines, as that depends entirely on your current window width. Make it wider, and you'll be back to one line; make it narrower and the entire table will be forced below the infobox and use the full width, resulting in all entries appearing on a single line. With my usual window width, I sometimes find that the 'Opponent ' column breaks over two lines, and I haven't touched those at all, nor has anyone complained about them. I don't see that 'tabular consistency' is an issue here; it's really not likely that a reader will find the occasional absence of a superfluous state code from a major city to be an obstacle to understanding. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in MOS that requires or even suggests removing State altogether from major cities. In addition to just having consistency, there is value to keeping them. In a roster, it shows if a program gets the majority of its players from a single state or are more of a national program ata aglacnce for the reader (may only apply to basketball as I don’t know if football shows hometown), it shows if a program only schedules within its state in an easily scannable format, etc. I don’t have a strong opinion on spelled out vs. abbreviation, but for college basketball articles I have been undoing these edits because project consensus has been for these to be present in infoboxes and templates and there is no guideline contradicting this. If you have “Baton Rogue, Louisiana” in a schedule table then you aren’t actually helping crowding of the table to put “New Orleans” and drop “Louisiana” so that argument makes no sense. Rikster2 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay, Cbl62, Lizardthewizard, Corkythehornetfan, and Jweiss11: These changes are still happening. You are invited to discuss this (among other things) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Colonies_Chris.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a clear case where the relevant project consensus should have the authority to maintain the use of state codes in the tables. Their use does not violate any overarching Wikipedia-wide style. Colonies Chris should cease his editing on this point, and ideally, rever-se the changes he has made. Do others agree with me? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, the only things I fully object to are a) shifting in spite of consensus when editors have asked to discuss b) I have a problem with changing[[Dallas, Texas|Dallas, TX]] or [[Dallas|Dallas, TX]] to [[Dallas]]. as that would look odd with [[Columbia, Missouri|Columbia, MO/Columbia, Missouri]] c) Stadium links such as Florida Citrus Bowl per

WP:NOTBROKEN that doesn't mean I endorse changing all FCB links to Camping World Stadium. JW had an issue with Tewapack about that a while back. I would be willing to support consensus but will fight vigorously against issue B.UCO2009bluejay (talk

) 01:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Archived ANI discussion is here. Basically, the close was that any changes to states in tables via AWB require consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba, thanks for the update. Looks like an admin has stepped in here to put an end to the problematic ending. Now who wants to go and restore the state codes to the hundreds of schedule tables that Colonies Chris changed? :) Jweiss11 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cards84664:

Cards84664 has begun adding a second footnote to team bowl game navboxes of: "Forward slash (/) denotes College Football Playoff semifinal game"

Examples:

• Clemson
• Alabama
• Oregon
• etc

I find the text to be verbose and use of / char is non-standard re Help:Footnotes. Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I was following the format that was already there on Alabama's template, change it to whatever works for you all. Cards84664 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Captain obvious: Whatever we pick, can we stop the silliness of having to explicitly write "pound sign" or "forward slash"? Showing #, /, †, ‡, etc. is enough without needing the English word also. And most of the world knows pound sign as £!—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That slash doesn't seem like an appropriate symbol. Intuitively you expect there to be another element on the other side of the slash. An asterisk seems fined. No issue with other symbols suggested. I also agree with Bagumba's point about explicitly writing out the names of these symbols. Not necessary. The various coach and AD navboxes have these symbols spelled out as well, e.g. Template:Ohio State Buckeyes football coach navbox, so those should also all be changed. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Related, see Category:American college football bowl by team navigational boxes where there is wide-spread adoption of "Pound sign (#) denotes national championship game." but no other similar footer callouts. In very recent history, this (#) designation is relatively non-controversial. In historical context, this designation is inherently inconsistent and controversial (1/2/3/4 ranked teams, from which poll, is final poll before/after bowl game, sequence of bowl games eliminating claims, etc.) The CPF "semi-final game" callout feels like recentism against the backdrop of decades with various selectors and systems.

Note, from 2007 onward the name of the article/game being linked clarifies that it is the national championship game, like 2007 BCS National Championship Game...2014 BCS National Championship Game and 2015 College Football Playoff National Championship...2017 College Football Playoff National Championship.

All in, I would propose removing the "Pound sign (#) denotes national championship game." text where present as inconsistent, removing the callouts for semi-final games (recentism) which are "just" bowl games in context to these "bowl game" navboxes, and adding a (recent) era-agnostic key for the 2007 game and onward, of "† designated national championship game." This limits the key to a single symbol and gains standardization from 2007 onward for the single designated championship game as determined by multiple annual systems. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bleacher Report, SBNation, and The Athletic have released All-American teams for the 2017 year. I have attempted to add them to the page but someone has reverted them since they "have never been included". I believe this is the first All-American team BR has released. These sites are legitimate news services for sports. Bleacher Report is affiliated with CNN. I think they pass notability guidelines and are worthy of inclusion. Do people disagree? Certainly they are as worthy as Althon and Scouts.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatterdaymorn (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say don't include them. In fact per

WP:UNDUE, limit the listing to All-American selectors only, like college basketball does at 2017 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans.—Bagumba (talk

) 08:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed last year as well, and probably every year before that. I'm not sure what the right answer here is. Notability doesn't apply to article content so it's up to our judgement. I'd say no to Bleacher Report and SBNation because those are blog sites. The Athletic also looks questionable. It says their team was selected by the site's staff, but who are the site's staff? Could be respected sportswriters (unlikely), could also be a bunch of college students. Lizard (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The staff of the Athletic includes several notable college football sportswriters, among them Max Olsen, Stewart Mandel, Chantel Jennings, and Nicole Auerbach. Jennings and Olsen were longtime writers for ESPN, while Mandel has written for both Sports Illustrated and FOX Sports for 18 years as per his bio. Meanwhile, Auerbach has covered college sports at USA Today since 2011. They are not blog writers like those who write for SBNation, and as such I disagree with the decision to omit their list from the page unless sources such as Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and FOX Sports are to be omitted as well. Due diligence should be done with regards to evaluating the writers for each website when deciding to strike them off the list. 11achitturi (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be 86ing some of the "sources" as well like Athlon or scout? Do the schools even recognize them? I hate to speak of slippery slopes but this is going nowhere fast. One day will we cite Big Bubba's Bama Blog where Alabama will have 26 first team AA.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Big Bubba's Bama Blog would fail on notability (as perhaps the Athletic). I don't think Bleacher Report is in the same category though. It is a major sports journalism website and is certainly of greater significance at this point than Althon or Rivals or even The Sporting News (which is an official selector). Now if you want to list just selectors that count toward "consensus" picks that might be a criteria to exclude all these things, but then you lose Sports Illustrated which seems excessive. Shatterdaymorn (talk 02:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The page itself says that the NCAA recognizes 5 total: Currently, the NCAA compiles consensus all-America teams in the sports of

unanimous All-Americans. Currently, the NCAA recognizes All-Americans selected by the AP, AFCA, FWAA, TSN, and the WCFF to determine consensus and unanimous All-Americans.UCO2009bluejay (talk

) 01:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You guys should just remove the reference to Basketball from that statement. Not only is it irrelevant since it’s a football article, it isn’t correct (for instance, consensus All-America basketball teams aren’t picked by position). Rikster2 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question "do the schools even recognize them?" Schools will recognize your grandma's All-America team. Personally, I'd support just listing the selectors that are recognized by the NCAA, but that'd undo the standard we've followed for years and which includes pretty much every AA article since the 1800s. @Cbl62: Thoughts? Lizard (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding beyond the consensus selectors, just understand that its going to be a mostly subjective (and time consuming?) exercise of likely straw votes.—Bagumba (talk)

My view is that "more information is better" so long as we clearly delineate which ones are official and which ones are not. See, e.g., 1926 College Football All-America Team#Consensus All-Americans. Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

My point is subject to the "qualifier" that non-official selectors need to be notable, typically as evidenced by their selections receiving coverage in reliable sources. Joe Blow can declare an AA team on his blog, but unless there is some objective indicia that Joe's selections are notable, they doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So at a minimum, the selector's picks must be mentioned by at least one (or how many?) independent reliable sources. This would rule out a school or conference touting its own players.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I brought up how schools will recognize your grandma's AA team. On top of being non-independent they're terrible for gauging significance. As for any other mentions in independent sources, it's easier for teams prior to the 21st century; just look for their team in a newspaper. See the ref to LA Times for the New York Sun's team on 1940 College Football All-America Team. But unfortunately we live in the digital age where getting published is no big deal and social media has overtaken mainstream media. Today you'd never see a minor selector's team listed by any independent source, much less the LA Times. The best you'll get is something like The Seattle Times reporting on a Washington player being named to Sports Illustrated's first team. Lizard (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I would suggest that we limit it to official selectors. At some point the necessary evil of editorial judgement must be used or else who determines a credible selector. You're right Lizard that this gets discussed every year and SDM was a proponent of adding Athlon in the past, and now this. And I believe he is legitimately asking for his perception of a composite list, but they create these unofficial lists to promote their product. We are not here to sell magazines, but to build an encyclopedia. I would have proposed a compromise that the official be listed in one portion and that any player mentioned in an unofficial AA team be listed lower, but I can also see that this is still digging after the same can of spaghetti, minus the meatballs. So that is why I hope we should limit it. If nothing else to prevent things like how we keep rehashing if the 1950 Kentucky Wildcats football team won a national title.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I could not disagree more strongly with UC02009bluejay's conclusion that we should excise non-official selectors from Wikipedia's All-America pages. Yes, we are to here to build an encyclopedia, but the best way to do that is to provide all the reliable, well-sourced information on notable All-American selections, while carefully distinguishing official and unofficial selectors, as we have been doing for years at 1926, 1939, 1948, 1964, 1975, and virtually every other historic All-America team article. By including all notable selectors, we allow readers to evaluate the bona fides of All-America claims. All too often, we see athletic departments or reporters making unsupported claims regarding All-Americans without saying who chose the person or whether the choice was 1st team, 2nd, 3rd, or honorable mention. The best way to combat baseless claims, and to objectively assess the bona fides of All-America assertions, is with more information presented clearly, not with less information. Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I take no position on whether Bleacher Report, SBNation, and The Athletic are notable selectors. Those points are subject to debate and determination of consensus. What I oppose strongly is the "throw out the bathwater" reaction of saying, "Let's just excise all non-official selectors." Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Further: The NCAA has been quite erratic in determining which historical selectors are recognized as official.

Athletic World magazine which made its selections based on a poll of 214 coaches and (ii) Romelke which compiled the votes of "nearly every important pressman who has picked an All-American team." Limiting Wikipedia's coverage to Camp's choices would be ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk

) 21:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not being snarky or anything but how could wikipedia determine "bona fide," and if we include these unofficial selectors how would a reader be able to differentiate say a Walter Camp vs an Athlon? I still disagree but I have a track record for going along with consensus even when I don' like it. My main goal even if I am in the vocal minority on this is how do we do it so we don't have this dog and pony show every year. Like some have voiced above some of these "selectors" like BR or scout are sketchy. Granted I generally like the evolutionary process but at some point we should draw the line. Basketball does for a reason, and that is my preference. (Yes, I know it is a different project, and criteria but it is a precedent.)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should purport to make an editorial judgment as to what is a bona fide All-American. To the contrary. What Wikipedia can do is provide the best and most complete objective historical data, thus enabling readers to assess that data and reach their own conclusions as to which selections are bona fide. As for how we distinguish between official and unofficial selectors, we can do so in the consensus charts (See 1926 College Football All-America Team#Consensus All-Americans) and by putting official first-team selections in bold (See 1926 College Football All-America Team#All-American selections for 1926). These two mechanisms enable the reader to quickly and clearly distinguish between official and unofficial selectors. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The standard of notability applies differently to the creation of articles than it does to the articles' content. The best way to avoid the 'slippery slope' arguments is to set a clear standard for inclusion - if the organization has a properly sourced Wikipedia article, it should qualify. This is the way other WikiProjects (WikiProject Chess, for example) determine notability and it would prevent Big Bobby's Bama Blog from being included (as is mentioned above). With regards to

WP:UNDUE, including both official and unofficial selectors should be fine as long as proper weight is given to official ones over unofficial. This is already the case; the lead of the article clearly states which selectors are official, and the official selections are put on bold type face and listed first. Triyng to subjectively include or leave out certain unofficial selectors (e.g. "SI can stay, but not Athlon") veers into "original research" territory. 11achitturi (talk

) 22:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not "original research" to filter out less notable selectors. Per the policy

WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ... We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it ...." So we could create three tiers of selectors: consensus selectors and notable non-consensus selectors which are listed, and non-notable selectors which are not listed. Or we keep it simple and include only the consensus selectors; you could view the non-consensus selections by the these official selectors as presenting the balanced minority view.—Bagumba (talk

) 12:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I used the term 'subjectively' - I should have worded that a bit better. There has to be a clear, objective standard for deciding what constitutes a 'notable' selector. So we are in agreement. My proposal was that if a selector has a properly-sourced Wikipedia page, it can be considered notable. It prevents a slippery slope from occuring with random blogs/minor websites from espousing their All-America teams. Once we have determined what selectors are or aren't notable, the insignificant ones should indeed be omitted. It is the standard for determining notability that is the issue here. 11achitturi (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My preference is also to have objective cutoff criteria, but that is subject to consensus. Barring consensus, it goes back to subjective straw-voting. Bear in mind that it's anyways subjective which objective criteria we choose, so we'll never escape some level of subjectiveness.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deep. Lizard (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it" is spot-on here. There's indeed a fine line between editorial judgement and original research. I think we're all in agreement that some selectors are more significant than others and that this should be clearly illustrated in some way. The biggest problem I see in splitting the selectors into tiers is it would create situations where some players would be listed multiple times. The current convention of mashing then all together avoids that. Lizard (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not thinking to change the current page layout. Just remove the non-consensus selectors that are considered not so notable (i.e. Tier 3)—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well I think that's what we try to do already. Maybe we could do a straw poll to decide specifically which minor selectors are notable and which aren't. Lizard (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you guys start looking at “official selections only” past a certain date? Or include all granting bodies that at one time were used by the NCAA (even if use was discontinued at some point)? In basketball, we went to the granting bodies that contribute to consensus status by the NCAA so there was a clear line of what is in and what is out. Does it really “officially” matter historically if someone was a Sports Illustrated or ESPN AA if these aren’t typically referred to by anyone other than the granting body and the school? I will also say, this is a bigger issue today than in the 1920s so that’s where a year cutoff could help manage it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Casanova is widely considered LSU's only three-time All-American, even by independent sources. He was picked by official selectors in 1970 and 1971, but only a single, minor selector in 1969: Football News. As far as I've found, no other selector even named him an honorable mention. Nonetheless he's a three-time All-American. What I'm saying is, "official" or not has really never mattered much to the general public. Lizard (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess. Sportswriters have always played a little fast and loose with the facts when it comes to this stuff. Technically, a person can claim to be an “All-American” as an honorable mention pick, as a preseason pick, or if selected by Cat Fancy magazine. The problem is that a lot of sportswriters don’t fact check what is fed to them by the school if it isn’t central to the story. That’s why a more independent red line can be helpful for an encyclopedia in these cases. Rikster2 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated four newly-created templates related to this project for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated

Hey all, I am actually very surprised that we don't have them, is there a reason as to why?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think they would just be clutter. The fact that individuals were inducted into the CFHOF in the same year isn't a very significant commonality. Frankly, I'm also not a fan of such "class" navboxes for Baseball HOF or Pro Football HOF either. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree at all, it just struck me as odd that nobody would have thought of that. Since we are on the topic of clutter why do we have

this navbox, when we already have one for the BCS and for the CFP.--UCO2009bluejay (talk

) 21:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I’d vote that these are clutter. Sports projects already get grief for having too many infoboxes. Rikster2 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Gang, there is a requested move discussion regarding the name of the school. Please visit

Gotta love those ULaLa.

WP:SPAs.UCO2009bluejay (talk

) 21:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone think there's enough to warrant a sock puppet investigation there? Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ejgreen77: Between the numerous IPs, Pncomeaux, Airbill, and others... I've been thinking that for a while now... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ejgreen77: Go for it.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi WP:CFB members. I'm not sure if this would fall under your WikiProject's scope, but was wondering if someone might mind taking a look at

I have nominated Template:1892 Eastern Independent Conference football standings and Template:1893 Eastern Independent Conference football standings for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Might as well stir the pot some more. I would recommend removing all the 95% font-size styles for CFB template tables. There is so little to be gained from that 5% reduction, it seems pointless. But I'm sure Jweiss has some reason to keep it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the goal there is to keep text in the various field from wrapping onto a second line in a standard display. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a standard display. And nowrap can handle the no wrapping. And you can probably get the 5% back if you change the big dot to a comma. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Per standard display not being a thing, see

Template:Infobox NCAA team season uses 90% font size for everything except for the top (title) field. If anything, I'd be in favor of dropping down to 90% to match that. Jweiss11 (talk

) 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That's screen resolution, when screen/window width is the important variable. I don't favor nowrap at all, just saying if that's your priority, then use it on columns like date and result. Infoboxes are limited width, so the smaller text makes sense. Absolutely no reason to use in a table that has up to 100% width. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a current request to move Talk:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders#Requested move 31 December 2017. Thanks, Corky 21:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And now for something completely different. I took someone's advice and took a look at 1880 Harvard Crimson football team for showing the footer row items turned off. After noting the template still produced a row, just empty and narrow, I also noted that as recently as just over a month ago, the article was quite bare [18]. I certainly would place more emphasis on fleshing out important articles like this one over creation of new stubs, but that's just me. And thanks to Cbl62 for adding two good sources.

Princeton, Harvard, and Yale were the "Big 3" that dominated college football in the 19th century. I agree that these articles should be a high priority to expand and develop. Please feel free to jump in! If you have questions, feel free to ping me. Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, after making a couple of corrections, I went to 1880 Princeton Tigers football team to make the same neutral field fix. From this article, I have a couple of issues: (feel free to jump into the middle of this thread to address points specifically - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC))

1. The Princeton articles of this era treat the Intercollegiate Football Association as a modern-day conference, with conference champions and records, although with many question marks for conference records. The other IFA members, Yale, Harvard, and Columbia, do not. They are "independent". (A term that has its own problems for teams of this era.) So what's going on here, just a more ambitious editor for Princeton? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on UW Dawgs' contribution below and no objections, I'm going to remove the IFA conference from Princeton's season articles. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Another issue for Princeton articles is the clunky lead. First, why the repetition of national championship streaks: "This season marked the tenth national championship in 12 years, and one of 11 in a 13-year period between 1869 and 1881." I would also make the parenthetical less clunky by putting the more common name factoid into the second sentence. Also curious if just "Princeton" is more accurate than "Princeton College". The full phrase is not mentioned in the History of Princeton article, just a transition from College of New Jersey to Princeton University. However, Princeton is used as the current name throughout, so it's hard to tell. And google treats "Princeton College" as equal to "Princeton University". A minor point, but if I'm going to change all the leads, I'd like to be accurate. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to reword the clunky lead. "Princeton College" was the commonly used name for the undergraduate school in the late 19th Century. A newspapers.com search turns up 772 hits for "Princeton College" in 1880, only 39 for "Princeton University". See also this book on the "Class of 1874 of Princeton College." Cbl62 (talk) 06:34, 26 D]]ecember 2017 (UTC)

I began to look at 1869 to start this project, but got distracted with

1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game, which wasn't in great shape (and rated low-importance). Then I got completely distracted. But I'll get back to the Princeton leads today. Can anyone chime in on whether IFA is a conference? If not, I would omit the conference parameters completely, but the stupid template requires it, and creates a wikilink for everything entered besides Independent. This is a separate discussion, but today's use of Independent does not apply to 19th century teams, when conferences membership was not the norm. It would be easy to make "Conference" an optional parameter in the template. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk

15:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Some more context, here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 18#Intercollegiate Football Association. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great, and I agree with your final decision. IFA is a rules-making body (and scheduling probably), but isn't a conference. Certainly not like today's conferences. I don't have any problems with the current IFA article, but I have a higher inconsistency threshhold than some. That article could use some more prose, history, and references however. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wmtribe2015: My sense is the article you created at Intercollegiate Football Association may go to AFD, shortly. Currently that article's content is presented as a college football conference. There is confusion around whether it is a conference and/or a governing body, using those terms loosely due to the era. Currently the article is functionally unsourced. Can you shed some light? Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: I wouldn't AfD the article. I would take out the list of champions (now) and add prose about the organization (I'd work on it). The IFA was a real thing, and important in the early development of American football. An article with a quick background (start in 1869) and an explanation of IFA would be a very useful article to wikilink or See also on many other articles without requiring wading through the very long Early history of American football. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Just asking, I have maintained that the score in an infobox of a bowl game should not be updated until the game has concluded, then the score should be added to the infobox. I've done a lot with keeping bowl game pages updated with scoring summaries and team statistics and I was wondering if there was a consensus on this already, or if one could be reached? Thanks, PCN02WPS 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until a game is concluded. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

See link. Posting in case anyone wants to create an article - he is a redlink on the Guilford coach navbox. Rikster2 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here: Template talk:CFB Schedule Start. Just starting with easy issues related to turning columns on/off and footnotes in Schedule End. I would recommend getting consensus on those issues before getting to Schedule Entry. I also found out that {{CFB Conference Schedule Entry}} exists, and there's {{CFB Yearly Record Entry}}. Any other families of templates that this discussion might touch? And are there any project template code experts that are volunteering? Or is it necessary to rely on Frietjes to do the heavy lifting? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

One person has commented at that page. And it looks like Frietjes is going to do the coding. Apparently, there will be a new, single template to use, but that means no changes to the output or requirements of the current template. No CFB to watch today and the NFL only has a couple meaningful and closely contested games. So how about it? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Is anybody going to work on this? I don't think it's too hard, but someone has to direct Frietjes how to code the table. Is everybody drained from the bowl game and/or sad the season is over? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes said they should have a demonstration template finished soon. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 UCF Knights football team, and, to a lesser extent, UCF Knights football, probably need admin intervention. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS could use the same, too. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why aren't the scores on the game summary tables centered? Template:AFB game box start It looks weird. While I'm at it, the wrap of the game details is silly too. Just put it underneath. And why is there a big dot in front of the winner? Bolding doesn't always display or something? The big dot itself is stupid. A comma does just fine between two different items. Do I need to ping Jweiss11? Probably not. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxerm, [19]. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, this used to be centered, there was a Wikipedia-wide change to the way tables were displayed a while ago, it screwed up the way this and many other tables are displayed. Obviously, no one has gotten around to fixing this one, yet. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TomHidden has edited 2014 Ohio State Buckeyes football team to replace the typical "Consensus national champion" with "Unanimous national champion" in the infobox. Is this appropriate? Seem inconsistent with articles for other national champs that may have been unanimous selections, at least among the major selectors. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1917 Georgia Tech was the only one I knew which had it. Cake (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The term "Unanimous" lacks a definition in the way that "Consensus" does have a specific meaning post-1950. So Infobox of "Unanimous national champion (4 of 4 official selectors)" should be changed. The cite (NCAA Record Book, pg 111) at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Yearly national championship selections from major selectors gives us "BR, HAF, HS, NCF" with no other teams selected in 1917. So "National champion" is fine. There are others (such as 1971 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team with "Unanimous national champion (17 of 17 official selectors)" where "Consensus" is accurate -and it's 18 by my count). UW Dawgs (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Many of the "Unanimous national champion" banners were my doing. I had thought it was helpful to distinguish those team named NC by all NCAA-recognized selectors. Having reviewed this discussion, I agree that the "unanimous" designation may be too loose. I have begun removing the "unanimous" designations and replacing with "consensus". Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jweiss11 has been engaged in what I consider to be highly unproductive editing tonight in removing sourced and verifiable schedule charts from every season article on the Detroit Titans football program (e.g., this diff). As I've told him, I find the "CFB Schedule Entry" to be time-consuming (and confusing) in the extreme. This may be unique to me, but I simply don't have the patience to do the tedious and confusing manual data entry required by the existing format. As a result, over the years, I've created many season articles, hoping that someone else might fill in the schedule tables. That hasn't happened, so I began filling in the tables this month, beginning with the Detroit Titans. The format I'm using attempts to precisely mimic the end product of the "CFB Schedule Entry" format but does so in a way that my impatient mind can manage. I am not advocating an overhaul of the system. I am simply trying to create Schedule charts on articles that have gone without them, in some cases for years. If Jweiss11 or someone else wants to convert my charts into "CFB Schedule Entry" format, I have no problem with that. Go for it. But what I do object to is Jweiss11 blanking all of the charts I created. This IMO could be properly characterized as vandalism. The bottom line is that we have an editor (me) willing to backfill on articles lacking schedule tables. I believe these sourced charts (as seen at 1947 Detroit Titans football team) are better than the long-standing status quo of no schedule information. Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cbl, if an element of Wikipedia editing is too difficult for you to do properly, then you should not do it. Your false charges of vandalism are also noted. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jw, I am simply trying to improve our season articles to the best of my ability. It is beyond me that you believe that the 1947 Detroit Titans football team is "better" without the schedule table I added (with inline citations for each game). If you prefer the "CFB Schedule Entry" format, you are free to convert to that format ... with no objection from me. What you are not free to do is go on a campaign of mass removal of sourced and verifiable content. Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your insistence on flouting a basic point of consensus on style is simply disruptive editing. Bad style replicates like cancer and you are engendering the spread. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not "flouting" anything. As we discussed on your Talk page, I'm simply doing the best I can to improve season articles. Bear in mind that variant schedule charts are numerous. See, e.g., 1951 Louisville, 1951 Wash. St., 1951 Texas Tech, 1951 Clemson, 1951 Duke, etc. (A couple of of these are really awful, the last couple are pretty good.) But if you want to "improve" things, the solution is to actually "improve" them. Removing accurate (and in the Detroit cases, fully sourced) content is not an "improvement". Rather, such mass removal of fully-sourced content is what really constitutes disruptive editing. Cbl62 (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Blanking sourced content, even if motivated by some template fetish, is vandalism. This isn't even a close call, Jw. I would sleep on it and hopefully you will cool off. Also hopefully some other CFB people will talk some sense into you. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, I think the overall contributions from both of you is more important than this single issue. I'd like to think you can work out a compromise between the two of you. My feeling is correct schedule information is better than none at all. Is there anything that can be done to make the templates easier to understand for Cbl62? Can Cbl62 use the template, but leave confusing parts blank? Can someone just convert the non-template tables later, as Cbl62 has no problem with that either. All of those options sound better than removing correct information that is in a clean format, even if the table is non-standard.—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with your opening comment. We discussed on Jweiss' talk page, but he asserted that his view "should be simply accepted and mark the end of this discussion" and then blanked the tables I had created. As for your compromise suggestions/questions:

• Making the template easier to understand and less time consuming would be great. The template is very cumbersome and has been a real impediment to building out the schedule charts despite nearly 10 years of this project's efforts. As Mnnlaxer noted at Jweiss' talk page: "Those tables are a pain in the ass for me, and I know more about templates than the average editor." The simple table format I'm using has each game on a single line and is way easier to complete. As points of reference, the NFL, MLB, and NHL projects all use simple charts, more akin to what I am doing, for their schedule/game log charts. See NFL, MLB, and NHL versions.
• As for completing some but not all parts of the template, I don't think that moves the ball forward and, even if it did, would just result in messy, incomplete charts.
• As to your third question, the format I'm using precisely mimics the output of the "official" CFB schedule template. It allows us to improve season articles and still permits a template-driven editor to swap out the formatting should they choose to do so. That's a compromise that makes sense to me. Cbl62 (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – A schedule is better than no schedule at all. If Cbl62 is willing to insert the schedules not using the template because it's "time consuming", then let him. If Jweiss and/or others don't like it, then they can
  WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and add the correct template... at least Cbl62 is willing to add the schedules. Should we use the template, yes, but I agree it needs needs updated and simplified. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest}
  01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I retract stating it was vandalism. Sorry, Jweiss11. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Template usability

Following are the current parameters for {{

My biggest issue with it has always been how many parameters you have to fill in whether you need them or not. If you're writing about an older season, you may not have the game time, attendance, or TV information (if it was even televised) readily available, and if the team wasn't ranked that year you may not need the rank column either. Normally this would mean that you can just leave out those columns entirely, but in the CFB schedule templates, you have to enter "time=no" (and so on for the other parameters) in both the header and every single entry. This is tedious if you aren't copying and pasting entries, and even if you are it's a lot of noise that you don't really need. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with TheCatalyst. For a 10-game season, it's like having to fill out a lengthy questionnaire 10 times and having to remember code for many of the entries. It's just SO much easier to do it the way MLB, NFL, and NHL do it -- where you simply list the information for a game on a single line. Here's a comparison of how a single game is dealt with using the two versions:

* CFB Schedule Entry (a 15-part questionnaire for each game): "{{

CFB Schedule Entry

}}.

{{CFB Schedule Entry | date = September 26 | time = unknown (does the coding require me to leave blank?) | w/l = w | nonconf = no because the team was "independent" (leave blank?) | homecoming = unsure (leave blank?) | away = no (do I write "no" or just "n") | neutral = no (do I just leave blank?) | rank = none (do I just leave blank?) | opponent = [[1947 Oklahoma Sooners football team|Oklahoma]] | opprank = none (do I just leave blank?) | site_stadium = [[University of Detroit Stadium]] | site_cityst = [[Detroit]] | gamename = none (do I just leave blank?) | tv = none (do I just leave blank?) | score = 20–24 | overtime = no (do I just leave blank?) | attend = 24,375 }}

* My way (a simple line of understandable text): "|September 26||Oklahoma||University of Detroit Stadium, Detroit||L 20–24||24,375"

The amount of time required to fill out multiple questionnaires (and figure out the correct coding) to complete the "official" template is unnecessary and deters schedule creation. Cbl62 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

All column use choices should only be in the header template, no repeating in entry rows should be needed. I would also take out the 95% font size and the dot between stadium and city. A comma would be fine. While on the subject, for {{CFB Yearly Record Start}}, entering "bowl = no" does not work. The label goes away, but there are still blank cells in the column. Also, for independents, if you don't include "conference = " (yes, blank), template code shows up in the table. And like CFB Schedule Entry, you need to include "| ranking = no" and "| ranking2 = no" on every entry if you're not using the ranking columns. I would hope Jweiss11 could admit that the template code could be vastly improved, which could potentially solve the issue. @PSUMark2006: or @Nmajdan: can you help out? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: Can you provide examples of articles for these errors in the template? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I just altered Cub Buck to show the "bowl = no" in the Start and took out "conference = " in 1917. Please undo the edit after you've had a look. But most problems with these two templates are coded correctly, they are just very cumbersome. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, see this edit as that will fix the "bowl" problem. Should we make the "conference record" field optional so it won't display {{{conference}}}? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Then the "bowl = no" issue is just like the rest of the repetitive "no"s you have to use, plus it wasn't mentioned in the documentation. Yes, "| conference = | confstanding = | bowlname = | bowloutcome = | bcsbowl = | ranking = | ranking2 = " should all be optional and default to blank cells if the column is being used or not creating cells in that column if the header has a "no" for that column. The same optional and defaults for the season entries should be made. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I realized that after I typed it... was getting ready to suggest conference as optional but you beat me to it! It would save us time this way. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 02:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, guys, here are my thoughts on this. Jweiss is not wrong in saying that we should be encouraging use of the official CFB schedule template. Cbl62 is not wrong in saying that the template as it exists right now is a bit clunky in certain spots. So, to me the solution is, let's work to improve the template to make it more user-friendly. I fully agree with what has been brought out above about the repetitive "no" parameters, and I think this is something the should be fixable. For example, if you enter "rank=no" into the header of the template, you shouldn't have to re-enter "rank=no" on every single individual game entry - that should be done automatically. And, the same thing goes for other parameters like time, TV, attendance, etc. The good news is that it seems to me like this is something that should be fixable, we just need someone with the technical skills like User:Frietjes to take a look at the template coding. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as far the usability, these templates were created years ago with a very modern BCS-centrist mindset, so those fields like time, rank, and TV are turned on by default. I'm not against flipping things around so that they are turned off by default. This would require some editing to the templates coupled with a bot sweep to clean up all the transclusions. Jweiss11 (talk)

Here are my general thoughts. I agree that are some small sub-optimal usability issues with the templates in question and I will support any effort to resolve or improve them.

However, the templates as they exist, are not that difficult to use properly with some care and attention to detail. If one chooses to build tables for a series of season articles for a particular team, once you get the first the table set up, you can accomplish much of the subsequent work by coping the code from one season to the next and making tweaks as needed—scores, dates, and opponent links will clearly change from one year to the next. This approach can be even more efficient given that teams will often play opponents in a similar order from one season to the next and have game locations toggle on a two-year cycle for regular/conference opponents. If anyone here wants to tackle the task of adding schedules tables for a series of articles missing them, I'm happy to help. Perhaps, attempt a table for the first of the series, and I can check it and make corrections as needed to facilitate the rest of the run.

What is absolutely inappropriate is the approach that Cbl has taken. He decided that templates were too much of a pain for him, so he just said, "fuck em". These templates have already been transcluded on over 11,000 articles. They represent a core element of consensus and cooperative alignment for this project and its sister college sports projects. Noting that some messy non-compliant outliers, which don't use these templates, exist is an intellectually dishonest excuse. Cbl's example of

Jweiss11 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

JW -- The problems with usability are not "small" or remediable with a little tweaking. There's a fundamental problem with a cumbersome structure that requires repetition and completion of a questionnaire for each and every game entry. None of the other major sports do it that way, and my suggestion is to convert to a simple chart along the lines of those used by the NFL (here), MLB (here), NHL (here), or NBA (here). Any of these is preferable to the bureaucratic and burdensome structure we currently use. As for my creation of charts, it's not a "f--- em", not to you or anyone. It's an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I hoped that someone might fill in schedule tables and waited, in some cases, 3-1/2 years, for that to happen (e.g., 1922 Harvard Crimson football team and 1921 Princeton Tigers football team were created in August 2014!). Unfortunately, nobody did it, so I'm now filling them in. And I'm not doing it in a bizarre or "intellectually dishonest" manner. I'm doing it in a responsible and sound manner that visually replicates the "official" version (with the exception of a new "Source" column recommended by Mnnlaxer). If you or anyone wants to modify formatting, that time could be better spent building charts on other articles that don't already have schedule charts, but you are free to do so (my only objection would be to removal of content). Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

CBl, your approach is a non-solution. Do you want to TfD the templates in question and replace all 11,000 transclusions with manual tables? Otherwise, what you are doing is engendering a style fork. The legitimate issue with the templates, raised by TheCatalyst31 above, are indeed small and remediable. I've described above exactly how that remediation would be accomplished. With the issue of the non-applicable fields turned on by default resolved, these templates would become no less cumbersome than any infobox. Perhaps we should do away with those as well in favor of manually-rendered tables? I've also offered to assist anyone having difficulty implementing these templates. Your behavior here continues be self-centered and intellectually dishonest. You're up in arms about a preponderance of season stubs missing schedule tables, a preponderance that you created and now are singularly annoyed by. Three or four years is under the time limit for Wikipedia. The time limit, in case you're forgotten, is the end of time. In the meantime, the small band of hands we have on deck here may be busy working on other things, even fixing schedule tables on other articles that happen to be off your radar. If you continue to flout the consensus here and create more of your non-standard tables, I will be forced to apply for some sort of injunction or topic ban against you. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

JW - Of course, I appreciate your efforts on other things. We're all trying to improve Wikipedia, but accusations ("self-centered", "intellectually dishonest", saying a different approach amounts to "f-- em") aren't helpful. The schedule chart at 1947 Detroit Titans football team is far from the abomination you seem to view it as. To the contrary, it's fully sourced (unlike most schedule charts), it's quick and easy to use, it's comparable to the "simple chart" format used for NFL seasons, and the output is virtually indistinguishable from the CFB Schedule chart (with the exception of Mnnlaxer's "Source" column). As Corky noted above, "at least Cbl62 is willing to add the schedules." But instead of a thank you, I get threatened. "Bah, humbug!" Cbl62 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ejgreen77, if you want something like {{sports rivalry series table}} for this purpose, we can definitely do that. I just need to have a few samples showing the input syntax and output result and I can generate a module that does the formatting. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11, it appears that "style fork" isn't a thing. If you can find it somewhere in non-project space, please let me know. Also, consensus can change. It is entirely possible that current consensus could choose to allow simple tables that replicate the look of the template. Not saying that will happen, just making a point about your righteousness and absolutism in this debate. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, style forking is indeed a thing. Compare the schedule tables at 1951 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team to 1951 Michigan Wolverines football team to 1951 Detroit Titans football team. The style here is forked in three directions. The Michigan table represents our best-in-class application of project consensus. The Texas Texas table was produced in ignorance and remains because of neglect. The Detroit table is a product of Cbl's deliberate flouting of consensus. I'm well aware that consensus can change, but it clearly has not yet. As for your assessment of my point, perhaps before you denounce the behavior of others, you should establish a pattern of good judgement here on wikipedia, instead of initiating a spurious AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Arthur Baird, or kicking up a bunch of nonsense about including a 1992 team video on Carleton Knights football. Then later we find out you were a player on the 1992 team. Certainly no conflict of interest there! Jweiss11 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Come on Jw, it's about flouting time to stop flouting the flouty flout. And as for the Baird AfD, it was hardly "spurious"; I ended up voting "keep", but it was not a slam dunk by any means. Finally, nobody is defending or advocating the Texas Tech format, but I think the 1951 Detroit Titans schedule table is actually significantly better than the 1951 Michigan table with its (i) burdensome coding, (ii) empty and unnecessary columns for Game Time and TV, (iii) absence of game citations, and (iv) multiple rows spilling over unnecessarily to a second line. Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Baird AfD was indeed an utterly spurious slam dunk keep. The time and TV columns can be easily turned off. Time to start discussing with some intellectual honestly, Cbl, and stop advocating for concessions to your own neuroses. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

" ... stop advocating for concessions to your own neuroses." Seriously? Did you actually just type those words and then hit the "Publish changes" button? A

WP:PA on the "types of comments that are never acceptable." Cbl62 (talk

) 22:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone has neuroses. It's a common, basic human malady. And I think it's a clear diagnosis of what's happening here. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Jw.

WP:PA. You're better than that; you don't need to resort to such low tactics to make your point. Cbl62 (talk

) 22:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Jw, you are out of line for your comments toward Cbl62. (Those directly at me are merely silly, especially insisting I look at my own behavior first, when you are the vandal.) On "style fork", I know what you meant, no need for examples. My point was that "style fork" is not a WP policy, guideline, or essay as far as I can tell, just something you made up. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, what's way out line is you doubling down on Cbl62's defamation of me as a vandal. Now you have both libeled me. The whole reason we have template and a manual of style is to foster consistent style. When consistent style breaks down, you have a style fork. Perhaps I coined that term, but I've used it support of core Wikipedia principles. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

JW: You make accusations of mental illness and then accuse others of "defamation" and "libel". The fact is that your unilateral and willful mass removal of fully-sourced and verifiable content from 30 articles can be fairly, accurately, and reasonably construed as vandalism. You should also review

WP:NLT re "Perceived legal threats" - please clarify your intentions in using the terms "defamation" and "libel". Cbl62 (talk

) 06:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Jw, a wise man once said: "The

WP:5P4. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk

06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cbl, I don't plan to seek legal remedy against you or Mnnlaxer for your defamations. I'm not sure the damages here would be worth one minute of a lawyer's time. I don't even you know your real names, nor do I care to know them. Nonethless, I was simply making assessment of ethics here. As for my "accusations of mental illness", I talked about neuroses. Virtually all human have them. Who here is immune from stress or anxiety? The theatrics you've put on to suggest I made some sort of rarefied psychological diagnosis is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable minds can differ on the coding for season article "Schedule" charts, but the discussion of that topic over the past week has gone too far. In the course of the discussion,

OCD, not simple "stress or anxiety"); (5) when called on this personal attack, doubled down by purporting to make a "clear diagnosis" of such conditions, (6) engaged in perceived legal threats by asserting that I had libeled and defamed him (I had cautioned that his unilateral, mass removal of sourced content from 30 articles could reasonably be construed as vandalism), (7) threatened to seek an "injunction or topic ban" to prevent me from creating simplified Schedule charts that differ in coding but produce functionally identical output, and (8) indicated that his accusations of libel and slander weren't an actual threat to sue, but merely an "assessment" of my "ethics". Apparently, he sees nothing wrong with his words and actions and views my protestations as "theatrics". To the contrary, such overly personalized and aggressive argumentation, incivility, and rudeness create a toxic environment and are corrosive to our core mission. Cbl62 (talk

) 08:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Following up on the suggestion by User talk:Frietjes (above) of the {{sports rivalry series table}}, I am opening a new heading to focus solely on format for a new template. The coding format of "sports rivalry series table" is very user friendly and desirable. Perhaps we should take a poll on what fields are truly needed. IMO, a more limited group of fields would be best, perhaps just (1) Date; (2) Opponent; (3) Rank; (4) Site; (5) Result; (6) Attendance; and (7) Source. I favor getting rid of "Time" and "TV" which are lesser details that could be dealt with in a "Game Notes" section (but if consensus is to keep these fields, I suggest that they remain optional as they are now). The "Source" column would not be needed once "Game Notes" are integrated into an article, so it should be an optional column IMO. "Rank" should also be an optional column, as it will not apply in many cases (where it has no application, no reason for an empty column). A simple asterisk footer for non-conference opponents could continue to be used, but the footer should be optional so it doesn't appear in tables for independent programs. In deference to the process, I will defer creating further tables until we work through this process. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, all of them elements of the existing footer can be turned off. See 1880 Harvard Crimson football team or an example. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The key from my perspective is jettisoning the burdensome and repetitive questionnaire format and adopting a simple format (a la "sports rivalry series table") where the agreed fields are set forth on a single line. Cbl62 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of retaining the time and TV fields. I don't see the value of having the fields "set forth on a single line". There's often enough information the tables that the text will easily wrap over onto a second line on most displays. The current layout, with each field on it's own line, is much easier to parse. See 2017 Michigan Wolverines football team#Schedule. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the simple chart format (a la "sports rivalry series table", and as used for NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc) is dramatically quicker and easier to use than the repetitive "questionnaire" format used by for college seasons (and no place else that I'm aware of). Also, maintaining empty "Time" and "TV" columns for old seasons (e.g., 1945, 1951 Michigan) is not a best practice IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

If the TV and time columns are irrelevant for older seasons, then those columns can be hidden. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they can be hidden, but practice is completely erratic (e.g., 1945 Michigan, etc.) because the coding is not user-friendly. A simple chart would make it much easier to eliminate inapplicable columns. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

College basketball uses Template:CBB schedule start and related templates. Template:Sports rivalry series table isn't a great comparison here because it's a much simpler table. So other then setting the defaults for the time, rank, and TV columns to off, what tangibly do you really want to change here? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

What do I really want to change here? I've said it many times, and I'll say it again -- we should adopt simple chart format (either as the standard format or as an alternative format) along the lines of what's been rolled out at 1947 Detroit Titans football team (which can be amended, of course, to add Time, Rank, and TV, where applicable, and to eliminate "Source" if consensus is opposed). As noted above (and ignored by you), similarly simple schedule charts are used by every major sport -- NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL. The simple chart format makes chart creation much, much easier. Like night and day. And it works great for the other major sports -- no missing seasons, no oddball formats (like 1951 Texas Tech and 1951 Wash. St.) resulting from the undue burden of trying to fill out the burdensome "questionnaire" for each game, no empty, superfluous columns because folks don't know the coding to turn off/hide them, etc. etc. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The manual charts used by the NFL and other sports (which I am well aware of) are inferior to the ones used for college sports because they lack the dynamic nature that allows for synced change down the line. In fact, I've considered in the past rolling out the college football style templates to the NFL and elsewhere. Can you be clear what exactly what you are proposing? Do you want to TfD the templates in question here and replace with manual coding? Otherwise, I can't see what tangibly you are proposing other than setting the default for the time, rank, and tv fields to off. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been clear about my advocacy for a simple chart format (which can be a standard or alternate format and does not in any way necessitate a TfD for the old format). However, in view of your recent personal attacks above, suggesting that my position is driven by mental illnesses/disorders (!!!) (my reply here), I am disengaging from you for the time being. Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be here when you're ready to move forward and have a honest discussion about this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You claim to want an "honest" discussion, but moments before typing that, you one-upped your personal attacks by purporting to make a "clear diagnosis" of my mental condition. See my reply here. My discussion has been honest and does not require reliance on personal attacks or accusations of mental disorders. Can we now, please, disengage -- at least for the remainder of Christmas Day? Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Echoing Bagumba from a few days ago, "I think the overall contributions from both of you is more important than this single issue." I hate to see bad blood between established editors, but this one is especially troubling and frankly unexpected. It's not a stretch to say you're the two most prolific editors of college football articles. And you've collaborated countless times before. I have no doubt we can figure something out here just as we always have. Lizard (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope so, Lizard. A lively debate is one thing. Good things come from debate. But the f-bomb, the purported "clear diagnoses" of mental illness (!), and the insults ("self-centered", "intellectually dishonest") are not part of healthy debate. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11, suggesting the straw-man of "TfD the templates in question here and replace with manual coding" (with their 11,000 transclusions*) is certainly not "honest" argumentation. I'm sure an easily-used template can be worked out soon if someone gets started working on it. The only question is who and how soon. I'm willing to chip in where I can, but the complex coding of these templates is beyond my skills. * For the 11,000 number, I'm assuming that includes season, coach, and program articles. If anyone has a breakdown of how it divides between those three (or more) categories, I'd be interested in seeing it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer: Cbl keeps talking about a "simple chart" and lauding the ease of non-template based schedule tables for the NFL, etc. What exactly does he want to do to simplify things beyond resetting the default for the time, rank, and TV columns from on to off—a change that seems to be supported by everyone here. He's been unable to article anything beyond hinting at the wholesale deprecation of the templates in questions here. So, I'm not engaging in a strawman here—your consistent pattern of poor judgement here on Wikipedia shows again. As for the 11,000 articles with these templates transcluded onto them, they are overwhelmingly comprised of team season articles; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:CFB_Schedule_Start. The head coaching records tables on the coach bio articles employ an entirely different set of templates (

Template:CFB Schedule Start and complements). Jweiss11 (talk

) 04:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any hinting at wholesale deprecation. Rather, Cbl waited a long time before acting, would love it if someone helped put his wikitable into the template, and fully supports revising the template. So there are 11,000 CFB season articles that use the Schedule templates. Which means how many total CFB football seasons? I'd guess 15,000 at least, but someone probably already has a pretty good estimate. Amazing. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Source column

Throwing in my opinion here after skimming through; I agree that we shouldn't have to fill out inapplicable fields with "no". We should be able to leave these fields blank. I also don't see an issue with adding a "Source" column as Cbl has done on the 1947 Detroit Titans football team article (although I'd name it "Ref"). Lizard (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lizard, a source column seems unnecessary to me. For a fully-developed article, most if not all of the content in the schedule table will be repeated elsewhere in the body of the article, in prose and/or the individual game box score tables. That's where the source should ultimate be placed. While an article is in development and lack such individual game detail, any sources supporting the table can simply be appended to the end of schedule section after the close of the table. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The "Source" column is being proposed for the great majority of articles that are not fully developed with Game Notes. It makes sense to put generic sources (like an SR/College Football site) at the end of the table, but the proposed "Source" column is intended to include a link to detailed coverage of a specific game, as in 1947 Detroit. Such game-specific sourcing belongs on the same line as the game being described, not in a messy string cite at the end of the chart. Cbl62 (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, when an article is fully developed, the appropriate place to put the inline citation is further down in the article where the information in question is detailed in prose. Similarly, we don't have inline citations in infoboxes. We put the inline citation where the information is repeated in the body of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

They could be used to indicate notability on articles that aren't yet developed. Lizard (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The "messy string cite" suffices for that. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Messy string cites are not a good solution. And the comment about infoboxes is a

NEA NFL MVP award and Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award. Such in-line citations are consistent with Wikpedia policies on verifiability and sourcing. Cbl62 (talk

) 05:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, messy string cites are not a good solution for an article nearing full development. The proper solution is to put the citation where it belongs, further down in the article, where the game in question is discussed in prose. And the red herring is yours, Cbl. Those awards list article have no place where each winner is discussed in prose further down in the article. These season article do indeed have a place where each game is discussed in prose further down. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's be realistic -- 99% of the season articles are not "nearing full development". For those articles, a Source column helps address concerns about notability and verifiability and provides a valuable resource to someone who wants to learn more or go to the next step in bringing the article closer to "full development". Cbl62 (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another effective use of the source column can be found it the NFL schedule format. See 2015 Dallas Cowboys season#Schedule. Cbl62 (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The recaps? I see external links inappropriately embedded into the body of an article there. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That's just stylistic. They could just as easily be citations, which is what I'm proposing. Focus on the substance. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Those citations belong further down in the article, in the sections detailing each game. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the source column is a good idea... as long as they remain references and not external links. I'd also keep the label "Souce(s)". Corkythehornetfan 04:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. They should be references, not embedded external links. Significantly, 90%-plus of our season articles don't have sections "further down ... detailing each game," so the schedule chart is the natural placement for the citations. A growing number of our sports charts have source/ref columns, and there is no policy against them. Cbl62 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If there no are sections "further down ... detailing each game", then the table can likely be supported by a single citation or maybe two, which can simply be appended after the close of the table. There's no reason to get sources for each individual game unless you are going to create those sections down below. If you do go and get the individual game sources, good—go and put them where they belong. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Having game sources is a good thing. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lizard, looks like we discussed the issue of adding a reference column to the table back in 2015. Dirtlwayer (RIP) wanted to add a reference column, and Cbl agreed with me back then that it was unnecessary! Jweiss11 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that as well. Opinions can change over two years so it's meh to me. But still ironic. Lizard (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, opinions can indeed change. We just hope they change for the better. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I very much recall the earlier discussion as well. We've progressed considerably in the use of reference/source column in charts. We all need to keep open mind to change -- the old "questionnaire" style Schedule chart has been largely unchanged since 2007 -- time to change for the better. Cbl62 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Streamlined coding

To clarify, I'm not opposed to "templates". I'm simply proposing a version (either the new standard or an officially-sanctioned alternative) that applies simple chart coding/format. With a simpler template, a single game entry can be created by cutting, pasting, and rearranging the raw data from a media guide or SR/College Football in about 10 seconds. An example is found at 1951 Detroit Titans football team. With the current, repetitive, questionnaire format, it takes more than 10 times longer to create a single game entry. The differential is evident by a visual comparison of the input required to create a game entry using the two alternatives:

* The simple chart template: "|October 26||Oklahoma A&M||University of Detroit Stadium, Detroit||L 7–20||12,680||[source citation]"

(10 seconds to cut and paste the basic elements - finding a source obviously takes additional time, regardless of format)

* CFB Schedule Entry (a 15-part questionnaire for each game): "{{

CFB Schedule Entry

}}.

{{CFB Schedule Entry | date = October 26 | time = unknown (can I leave blank?) | w/l = w | nonconf = no (can I leave blank?) | homecoming = unsure (can I leave blank?) | away = no (do I write "no" or just "n") | neutral = no (can I leave blank?) | rank = none (can I leave blank?) | opponent = Oklahoma A&M | opprank = none (do I just leave blank?) | site_stadium = University of Detroit Stadium | site_cityst = Detroit | gamename = none (can I leave blank?) | tv = none (can I leave blank?) | score = 7–20 | overtime = no (can I leave blank?) | attend = 12,680 }}

(minimum of two minutes to analyze and manually input the data, then multiplied by 10 games per season, then multiplied by hundreds of seasons, and the time differential is ginormous)

The output of the two versions is virtually indistinguishable. And the time savings in using a simplified format is massive and facilitates much more rapid creation of schedule tables. Seems like a "no brainer" to me. Would love to hear input on this from someone other than Jw. Cbl62 (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

One option is to modify {{

CFB Schedule Entry}} so that it also accepts unnamed parameters i.e. 1st parameter is always for <field1>, 2nd parameter is always for <field2>, etc., without needing to explicitly write "<fieldx> = " each time.—Bagumba (talk

) 07:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba, in that case you'd then have to remember the exact order the fields, which are empty, and how many "|"'s to place where. Again, let's not forget we also have to use same template to serve tables like one at 2017 Michigan Wolverines football team. Cbl, you can explain exactly how you want to simplify the coding other than to turn the default setting for the time, rank, and TV fields to off? Jweiss11 (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We could support both named and unnamed parameters, leaving it to the respective editor's preference.—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see a mockup of that, if we could get one of the coding gurus to give it a shot. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we just combine the three schedule templates (Start, Entry, End) into ONE template? That's what's frietjes is suggesting (why the rivalry table was mentioned) and personally I think is the best option. It'll be much, much simpler and in the end will save us time because we won't have a hundred different templates to fill out... Corkythehornetfan 03:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Overlaying unnamed parameters on named parameters strikes me as needlessly complex, for the reasons Jweiss11 describes. It might be faster to create a table using that method, but at the cost of long-term sustainability. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this conversation should be moved to

No objection. Keep discussion going there. Prepare some alt versions. Then bring it back here for a vote sans insults. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cbl back to adding more non-complaint schedule tables

Cbl, why are you back to adding the non-compliant schedule tables? Can please cease and wait for the relevant templates to be reworked? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Can you please stop with the non-compliant schedule tables and wait until the templates are reworked? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to fight about this any more and hopefully a streamlined template will be approved soon. In the meantime, there is no question that my revision today at 1897 Harvard Crimson football team (and three days ago at 1899 Yale Bulldogs football team) providing full game details, improved formatting, and reliable sourcing represents a very significant improvement over what was there before (compare here and here). Remember our efforts to improve Wikipedia are incremental; my edits advance that process in a positive way. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits to improve these articles, but all of your non-compliant, manual tables are going to have be redone. In the meantime, our consensus on style is being undermined and we remain more and more exposed to a malignant style fork. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@

move on, continue improving content, and enhance the available templates. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk

) 02:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm not sure who the "everyone else to date" is. And you are minimizing the damage Cbl is doing with his deliberate flouting of long-standing, core consensus. I don't plan to move on until this issue is resolved properly. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

JW -- I don't object to your recent edit at 1903 Yale, but your aggressive edit summary (here) is not one of your better moments. Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: I can't put it another way: please

WP:CCC) for these edits of Cbl62's, and general agreement on an improved template going forward. And there is no issue from Cbl62 or anyone else if you or anybody chooses to enhance his tables.—Bagumba (talk

) 07:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, if you'd like to avoid further "aggressive" edit summaries, please cease and desist with your campaign to flout our long-standing consensus on schedule tables. Bagumba, perhaps I should invoke

WP:5P5 and disregard all of your terrible commentary on this issue? Jweiss11 (talk

) 03:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, no one has supported you in your quest to prevent imaginary "style forks". Plus, a third party called your removing Cbl's tables "unjustified". That means there is no legitmate reason they should be removed, which means that there is no problem with creating them. Plus you have no idea what wikipedia principles mean. First, you claimed that removing the tables was in support of core wikipedia principles. When called out, you first cited this project's essay and then ignored my rebuttal. Now you say "there are no firm rules" means you can denigrate others. You are completely off base here. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, we've already discussed how you have terrible judgement here on Wikipedia, e.g the spurious J. Arthur Baird AfD and that self-interested, COI-infused nonsense about the 1992 Carleton team video. Frankly, you are of out league trying to take me on here. I've been working on this college football stuff for over a decade, stuff that you're still in the process of discovering how to navigate. You've also misinterpreted how and why I threw "there are no firm rules" back at Bagumba. It's a tautological premise that can be applied to everything; therefore it has virtually no meaning. And even if my removal of the Cbl's tables was "unjustified" (an assessment I don't necessarily agree with), that wouldn't mean that there is no problem with creating them. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:NPA's guidance: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." You are way, way, way better than that. Cbl62 (talk

) 09:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content of other's arguments here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, when you say "you have terrible judgment" and "you are out of league", most persons would objectively view that as commenting on the capabilities or personal attributes of the contributor, rather than commenting on the content." Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see ban placed on the both of you from season articles until the new schedule template is completed. I'm tired of seeing this war – that isn't going anywhere – keep continuing. As I said above, I see no problem adding these tables until something new replaces it. If others don't like it, they can

I think an

WP:IBAN might suit your needs better, not an outright ban on the articles. I was holding out hope that the poll below would put an end to this.—Bagumba (talk

) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree the interaction ban would be better. Let's hope the poll works. Corky 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish Jweiss11 would simply "

WP:DROPTHESTICK", as Bagumba urged above. But I do not think an interaction ban is necessary or desirable, as I generally get along with JW and have engaged in cooperative editing with him for many years. I am not motivated here by any desire to aggravate JW; to the contrary, it is upsetting to me that he has reacted so negatively to my efforts. What motivates me is the sincere desire to improve season articles. I voluntarily paused creating new charts for 12 days from December 24 until December 5 in hopes that a streamlined template might be approved. I remain committed to helping with the overhaul, but that may take weeks, and in the meantime, I currently have the time and energy to continue improving season articles (that's a big part of what I do around here). I oppose any sort of injunction on my continuing those efforts. Does anyone other than JW really believe my efforts earlier today at 1891 Princeton Tigers football team are not a positive contribution to Wikipedia? That it bothers Jweiss11 is unfortunate and unintended, but it is not a valid basis for an injunction against my work. Cbl62 (talk

) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, you do realize that some editor, whether that's me or someone else, will have to redo the table you've created at 1891 Princeton Tigers football team at some point in the future. This would not be necessary if you just used the existing templates. Perhaps this will cost you an extra X minutes. But it will save another some multiple of X minutes in the future. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This argument is a red herring for the reasons I've outlined below under Corky's vote. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Corky and Bagumba; the only ban that's remotely warranted here is a ban on Cbl creating more non-standard tables in contravention of long-standing project consensus. Despite our conflict here, Cbl and I are having no problem cooperating other topics, even side topics related to these very tables; see User talk:Jweiss11. So, an interaction ban is unwarranted and impractical. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll on Cbl62's editing

Is it appropriate for Cbl62 to continue to create manually-rendered, non-template-based schedule tables (e.g. [20]) in contravention of long-standing consensus among this WikiProject and its sister college sports projects?

• No, it's inappropriate and irresponsible flouting of consensus and project-wide cooperation. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I object to the phrasing of the poll which presumes my edits are in "contravention" of anything. Nevertheless, I have provided my substantive response below. Cbl62 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. It has facilitated the addition of schedule charts to many long-neglected season articles. See, e.g.,
  WP:V. These additions represent a significant improvement over what was there before. Remember our efforts to improve Wikipedia are incremental; my edits advance that process in a positive way. If Jweiss11 or others wish to tweak the formatting, they are free to do so as Jweiss11 did at 1903 Yale. Let's all work together to keep improving the encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk
  ) 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Cbl62's edits have been fine For the record, I do not know if there is a "long-standing consensus among this WikiProject and its sister college sports projects". At any rate, Cbl62 has been adding verifiable facts, and anyone can enhance his presentation if they see fit.—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, perhaps you should do you research then and confirm this obvious fact about long-standing consensus before weighing in? Look at the history and transclusion count for

Template:CFB Schedule Entry. Looks how it's used uniformly for college football team season articles with two exceptions: 1) newbie editors who don't know what's going on and aren't acquainted with this WikiProject and its consensus styles and 2) Cbl62 in recent weeks. Jweiss11 (talk

) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You might have missed where I wrote "At any rate ...". Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes and No – Though I personally believe the tables are fine, I think we should just quit adding schedules until the new template is done. Corky 19:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Corky, my expectation here is that whatever changes are made to the templates in questions, a bot will sweep though thousands of existing tranclusions to bring them in line with the new form. I see no reason to cease creating tables using the templates as is. There's not much difference between a bot having to make a run through 10,000 articles or 12,000. Editors are in the process of building the 2018 articles using them and we should not thwart that effort. However, Cbl's non-standard, manual tables will likely have to be brought in line manually—essentially redone—one-by-one. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

JW -- Your argument is a red herring for two reasons. First, there is no "need" to modify what I've done at, e.g., 1891 Princeton Tigers football team; it is perfectly fine, well formatted, and fully sourced as is. Second, if the formatting bothers someone, they are free to reformat it, and the time required will be less than if that person were starting from scratch, as I've already done all of the substantive work in collecting the correct information and sources. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That you think this is all a "red herring" is simply a product of your fundamental disrespect and disregard for the long-standing consensus regarding these tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes As Cbl62 has pointed out multiple times, he's adding schedules to articles that didn't have schedules for years. It's hard to see why this isn't an improvement for the reader, who probably doesn't care that much about consistent formatting, and it's not like he's getting in the way of anyone who's trying to add templated schedules, since nobody appears to be doing that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31, many people are engaged in adding templates schedules. Your suggestion to the contrary is utterly false and should be retracted. Take a look at any of the 2018 articles coming online. Take a look at my edit history, e.g. 1926 Texas Tech Matadors football team. Take a look at the hundreds of articles with properly-formatted schedule tables that User:Ocfootballknut has created in recent months. The problem is that there are thousands of articles to get to. Cbl isn't reducing the backlog of the number of articles that need properly formatted tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My point is not that nobody's adding schedules, it's that nobody seems to be getting to the ones Cbl62 wrote anytime soon, and I see nothing wrong with using non-templated ones for now. Worst-case scenario for folks using the templates is that they can just delete the old one and start from scratch, which isn't really any different from not having a schedule at all, and until they get to that (which could take years) we're providing better content for the readers. I can't get behind making articles worse for readers just to make things be a little better for editors down the road. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• No While the non-formatted schedules are undoubtedly better than no schedule at all, Cbl62 is creating unnecessary work for later Wikipedians who will eventually have to convert them to the CFBSchedule template. Frankly, the unformatted tables are an eye sore when you're used to reading the formatted ones. Do it right the first time, since you are investing the time to do it at all. Ostealthy (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ostealthy: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I am not talking about unformatted schedules. Do you view the table at 1891 Princeton Tigers football team to be an "eye sore"? Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I really have mixed emotions but the entire table on 1891 Princeton has a black background and some blue links all the info is not readable on the computer I am using.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure why the table might be rendering that way on your computer. Does anyone with technical smarts know why this is happening on UCO2009bluejay's screen? 22:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison

There are only a handful of readers who would know which one below is the "correct" template and which is "non-compliant". (Those are actual scare quotes).

The first one is preferrable to me, I would like to see the official template move the rivalry to after the team name, use 100% font, get rid of the big dot, and get rid of the empty row at the bottom. And add a source column. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, do you know how much easier it is to make those sort of changes, like moving the placement of the rivalry link, where thousands of articles are affected, when you have the tables based on templates? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As for the placement of those rivalry links, what would do you with a table like the one at 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team? Do the four rivalry links move to the Opponent column, but the Rose Bowl links stays where it is? Or does it move too? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the reader isn't supposed to know which form is the compliant one. The reader is supposed to only ever encounter one form, so that their experience is consistent as they move between analogous topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1. "I would like to see the official template..." 2. Move all to after opponent. Was that supposed to be a hard question? 3. Their experience is consistent looking at those two tables. That's my point. Even if a "style fork" existed, this would not be an example. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1) The point here is that Cbl's non-use of templates doesn't support automated, systemic changes like this. 2) Fair enough. I wasn't sure that you had thought through all the permutations. 3) It's pretty ridiculous that you continue with your campaign of denialism that inconsistent formatting can exist. It would be honest of you to admit that exists, but that you simply don't care about it. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl62 still adding non-complaint schedule tables

@Cbl62: If you create one more non-complaint schedule table, as you just did at 1895 Princeton Tigers football team, in flouting contravention of long-standing consensus and our cooperative efforts to provide readers with a consistent user experience, I will open an item at the administrators' noticeboard to see about having a topic ban enforced upon you as a last resort to try and stop your stubbornly disruptive editing. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Choosing to

WP:BATTLEGROUND. I hope this is not the case.—Bagumba (talk

) 06:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm escalating in an attempt to resolve a chronic problem. But again, doesn't your raising of

WP:BATTLEGROUND, since it can tautologically be applied in every scenario? Jweiss11 (talk

) 14:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Your threatened forum shopping is unmistakable and transparent. Fortunately, Frietjes has now rolled out of the new simplified template, which appears even more user friendly than anyone could have hoped. The simplified format promises to save hundreds of hours of editor time as we create new season articles and tackle the backlog of season articles without schedule charts. Hopefully, you recognize this significant benefit, and we can move forward without further acrimony. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, I have no problem with anyone working to improve the existing templates. My only problem was with you bypassing that process, flouting the existing consensus, and doing your own self-serving thing. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Still with the insults. You could use a lesson in graciousness. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone kindly look into the navigation box templates Template:Georgia Bulldogs roster nabvox and Template:Georgia Bulldogs Roster navbox. Appears like some inexperienced editor has created multiple templates that are improperly formatted. Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 14:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what these would be used for even if properly formatted. They should be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The user was trying to make something like this Template:New York Jets roster navbox. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This type of thing isn't as applicable for college football, where not all of the players are notable. If these templates were finished, they would be mostly redlinks. Agreed with Jweiss, send these to TfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not into American football and wouldn't be able to judge whether these are notable/useful or not. If you think so, please feel free to nominate it for deletion. Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 09:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:NCAA College Football Championship Games navbox should simply be deleted. It's ill-conceived. Jweiss11 (talk

) 03:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a starting point re "consensus." College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Yearly national championship selections from major selectors. Some of the navboxes in that cat are indeed consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this seems to be WP:OR. Lizard (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The NCAA uses Consensus to refer to teams selected by all major outlets. Refer to page 120 here: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2017/FBS.pdf TTownTurkey (talk)

Well that settles that. This is why citing sources is important. Lizard (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, that doesn't quite settle that. 1997 and 2003? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What about them? Lizard (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You are invited to help reach consensus at

This is the first AfD I've seen in which I'm entirely neutral. 50/50 both ways. If there was ever a prototype "on the fence" article it'd be this one. Lizard (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there are a very small number of papers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc) that qualify as more than “local paper” status even if the subject plays for a local team. I feel like the LA Times may be one of these papers. It seems weird to me that a player from Oregon State could use a lengthy profile from the LA Times as a legit source but a UCLA or USC player couldn’t. This small (but undefined as of yet) group of papers represent some of the most reliable sources there are, and they do need to be more selective than (for example) the Reading Eagle or the Richmond Palladium-Item with their content, even when dealing with one of the big local teams. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The regional papers I typically hold in higher regard are NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune, in that order. I do tend to view the coverage of a local player by one of those papers to be less significant, and I think most would agree. But, as Cbl62 states on that AfD, guidelines do not explicitly make this distinction. Lizard (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Decided to go with "weak delete" after reevaluating the universe and the meaning of life. Lizard (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• It has never been policy that local or regional papers have no weight in a GNG analysis for college football players. Bagumba can speak for himself, but that is not even what he's advocating in the Walker AfD. If such a rule were to be adopted, it would inappropriately place athletes in a separate category where a higher burden is required than for other types of biographies (e.g., mayors, businessmen, local TV personalities, etc.). More significantly for members of this project, such a rule would result in the deletion of roughly 90% of the articles on college football players who played in the era when there was no ESPN.com and did not go on to play in the NFL. In that era, the reliable, independent coverage comes from major metropolitan dailies There is an old saying in the law that "Hard cases make bad law." The Walker AfD is such a hard case: his notability is marginal, but those weighing in to the effect that local and regional coverage should be disregarded should be very wary of the profound impact such a precedent could have on thousands of meritorious cases. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI -- A policy excluding local and regional newspaper coverage and requiring national media outlets would strike an even more devastating blow to coach biographies and season articles. Putting aside the top 50 all-time coaching legends (e.g., Bear Bryant, Pop Warner, Knute Rockne, A.A. Stagg, Fielding Yost, Tom Osborne, Frank Leahy, Woody Hayes, Bud Wilkinson, Barry Switzer, Bernie Bierman, John McKay, Bob Neyland, Walter Camp, Bo Schembechler, Howard Jones, Red Blaik, Bob Devaney, Wallace Wade, Jock Sutherland, John Heisman, Dan McGugin, Robert Zuppke, Biggie Munn, Gil Dobie), 90% (maybe more) of the remaining pre-ESPN coach articles are supportable by local and regional newspapers, but would fail at AfD if coverage in national media outlets were required. Similarly, putting aside the top 15 or 20 programs (e.g., Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma), 90% (maybe more) of the pre-ESPN season articles would fail at AfD if coverage in national media outlets were required. Just saying. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All good points. However, it would be more beneficial to have this discussion in the AfD itself.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Lombardi Bowl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While I can find some announcements about the proposed initial game and invitations to it, I can find nothing about it actually occurring. I don't believe that this college all-star game that was announced and never played is notable because there is not significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 00:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

We have an issue on the Ole Miss 2008 through 2016 season articles and other related articles and standing templates regarding vacated wins. An IP editor is claiming that all wins for those nine seasons have been vacated, but the sources cited from December only indicate that some number of wins may be vacated at some future date. The IP editor has also been edit warring with Cubone5147. @Cubone5147: please weigh in here. Anyone else have the skinny on this subject? My sense is that the alleged vacations are premature. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Surely we should wait until the official announcement of the vacated wins? Jhn31 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jhn31. Until they're officially vacated, they should not be removed. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted all the recent edits from the 9 Ole Miss season articles the 9 SEC standings templates in question to remove reference to the potential vacations, which have not yet occurred. Let's keep an eye on this one! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've got every page for an Ole Miss football season since 2008 on my watch-list, and I try my best to keep the pages free of inaccurate edits. I've warned this user before to stop, but I don't see any other option within my power than to try and keep the pages clean, thanks. Cubone5147 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Another interesting AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mannello. The issue presented is whether there should be a presumption of notability for college football coaches at the NCAA Division III level. Feel free to weigh in if you have a point of view either way. Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sufficient coverage has now been found so that this particular case arguably passes

WP:GNG, but the question remains: Should a presumption of notability apply? Cbl62 (talk

) 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

An SNG for a D3 coach?

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST aside, we don't even have an SNG for FBS coaches.—Bagumba (talk

) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree but someone apparently told DGG (the AfD nomination) that NSPORTS covered DIII coaches (it does not). Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A user who joined us in December has taken WP:BOLD to a new level. The user has been radically reformatting "college players in the NFL Draft" lists without consensus. See

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID to change the use of "bold" lettering in the introduction to season articles. As this affects a protocol that has been in use by the college football project and other sports projects, please feel free to add your view at the discussion so that a consensus can hopefully be reached one way or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP user who keeps changing the Ole Miss records also keeps changing Notre Dame's

Also, I'm pretty sure the IP has done enough to warrant a block.

This is covered at Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories. I left the user a note and reverted the 2 articles I could see s/he'd changed. JohnInDC (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose adding team colors to two infoboxes relating to this WikiProject:

Infobox basketball biography currently uses colors from Module:College color, Infobox NFL biography does not. It looks odd and confusing when the colors are used for one template and not the other. As with the NFL and basketball biography infoboxes, we could make it so once the coach or administrator is no longer coaching or performing administrative duties, the colors would not show.

For a quick summary, I want to add school colors to the NCAA football team and college coach infoboxes, as well as add the module to NFL biography. In the coaches infobox, once a coach/administrator is no longer active, the colors get removed. Let's align the templates so we are consistent! Thoughts? Corky 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just commenting on Infobox college coach. I don't think Charlotte Smith should be defined by her current college coaching job. That won't change, but it's not right to change college coach just to match it. Grey headers are certainly not confusing. But more importantly, this template does not just relate to this project. I would suggest not discussing it here, but at the template's talk page. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I had invited other projects the template is used for to this section. The reason I brought it here is because a most of the members will see it on a WikiProject before the template, especially if they don't have it on their watchlist. It seems the most active users belong to multiple sports projects so it's best to just leave it in one place. Smith is just one of many examples. We need to be consistent. Corky 04:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have the discussion on the template talk page and direct this and other projects there. Currently there isn't anything about this proposed change at the template talk page. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, again, I found that it is much easier to get a discussion going at a WikiProject than a template's talk page. There is no problem doing it this way. I will post a section for others to visit this section if they'd like to discuss it. I may post a notice there once I've got a general consensus from here – assuming others are willing to discuss it – informing those that have it on their watchlist that colors will be added if that's the result. Corky 16:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be easier to get a discussion going here, but those that watch the template need to be informed now at the very least. Plus, you've got two different templates under discussion here. I would leave the NCAA football school here and cut and paste the college coach discusion there. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I can go either way on this, but it would bring some consistency. I am only in favor of colors for ACTIVE coaches, though, not historical ones (like Dean Smith). Leave former coaches grey, it helps differentiate active from retired and colors get confusing for the vast majority of coaches who are at more than one school during their careers. Also, I really fail to see why Charlotte Smith’s infobox shouldn’t reflect the colors of her current job. Jason Kidd’s infobox shows the Milwaukee Bucks even though he never played there, what’s the difference? Rikster2 (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the plan to only color the active coaches. Corky 16:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support. I'm not a huge fan of decorative color, but it would be consistent with navboxes and such, and it's not like color stuff is "banned". We just don't want to see people trying to do lame cutesy effects in the prose, or sticking icons all over the place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Rikster, also agree don't allow for non-active coaches.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Rikster. Corky, I think this change makes sense and thanks for proposing the change. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support use of college colors for active coaches, per all above. If I remember correctly, the exclusion of the colors from Infobox college coach is a leftover from the Dirtlawyer Era. I think we can move ahead and do it now. At the very least, Module:College color should definitely be added to the NFL box; it's just about the only colors that aren't in there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: Colors were added to the templates for consistency. Colors are only shown for active coaches, administrators, etc. Thanks, Corky 19:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I think another thing that needs to be done now is adding the pro football colors into Infobox college coach. See June Jones for an example of where this would be applicable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ejgreen77: I'm going to refer you to User talk:Frietjes#Colors to the infoboxes... Frietjes recommended switching to the {{Infobox NFL biography}} for the time being for similar articles. Corky 01:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Or we can just merge the college and pro infoboxes like basketball did.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm game for that, Bagumba, but good luck trying to get others on board! Corky 02:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This article has been prodded for deletion as not notable. It is a Division III program. At the time of the prod, it was sourced exclusively to the UW web site, which is not independent. What do people think? Should it be deprodded? Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it should be AfD'd, not prod'd. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It is now at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks football team. Cbl62 (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, Maryland's media guide is in error. The standings table should reflect the official stance taken by the ACC at the time, which is that games against Clemson did not count in the ACC standings at all during 1983 and 1984. Maryland's record was 5-0 both years. We cannot have the standings table reflect all of the individual media guide's take on the issue, as they are not compatible. Ostealthy (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, you beat me to posting. Issue is very similar to vacated games, where the on-field game result for some teams is at odds with some sanctions. Not taking a position either way here. The special-note parameter within both ACC standings templates should serve to clarify (including with cite) and then the YYYY ACC team articles can follow that treatment. Right now the treatment is inconsistent across YYYY infoboxes, YYYY schedule sections including whether their Clemson game was designated conf or non-conf, the ACC standings templates, and possibly the various "List of <team> football seasons" articles. Can we find a second on-point citation, beyond the offline cite present already (and only) in the 1983 and 1984 Clemson article ledes? And then add/update globally including

Template:1984 ACC football standings, and List of Clemson Tigers football seasons. UW Dawgs (talk

) 13:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Using this source, I'm going to go ahead and update the various pages to consistently list Clemson's games as non-ACC games. This means marking them as non-conf games, similar to the situation when UNC and NC State played each other as part of their non-conf schedule a few years ago. Ostealthy (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you please quote the relevant material before updating the 16 team articles? It wasn't immediately clear, doesn't seem to align with the articles I've reviewed, and there is no rush as we're still in discovery before bringing consistency to 20+ articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

These are two good, general sources re the Clemson sanctions.nytimes.com, upi.com.

And these three are on-point narrowly re the ACC championship. (Clemson President) "Atchley said the ACC sanctions also will keep Clemson from sharing conference television and bowl revenues for 1983 and 1984, bar them from competing for the conference championship in 1983 and 1984 and prevent results of those games from being used to determine the conference champion in those years."washingtonpost.com, "In addition, Clemson will not be allowed to compete for the ACC football championship for the next two seasons." upi.com, and "....no games against the Tigers will be counted in the league standings."Google books.

So far I see 1) Clemson being barred from the ACC championship is an ACC sanction. Therefore the special-note in both standings templates is incomplete as it only references NCAA sanctions and should be updated to overtly link the ACC sanctions to Clemson's conference championship ineligibility. 2) Games with Clemson had no impact on the selection of the ACC champion (not that the games were "suppressed" or impacted the ACC standings in any manner beyond the selection of its champion, but "no games against the Tigers will be counted" requires more context and discovery). Above was my first pass and have not yet read the other citations from Ostealthy. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The line "prevent results of those games from being used to determine the conference champion in those years" is what's key. The way you prevent the results of games from determining the champion is by omitting those games from the league standings. This is reflected in the media guides of all ACC members besides Clemson and Maryland, who list their conference records that year as though they had not played Clemson in-conference. This is supported further by nearly every single game-recap found in contemporary newspapers. I've already cited several of these across Clemson, Maryland, and GT season articles. Unfortunately I can't provide direct links because I'm using my university's proxy access to ProQuest to access those articles, which doens't provide shareable links as fair as I can tell. Ostealthy (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It means what is says. Clemson game results don't impact the determination of the ACC champion(s) for each of those two years. The ACC sanctions may also remove or alter the presentation of those games within their standings, but that hasn't been established. And now we have the ACC media guide, pg 115 to clarify this. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. It seems like the official standings seem only to solidify my interpretation of the WaPo line.

It's interesting that they list Clemson's in-conference records despite not counting those games for the other schools. My preference would be to keep the standings listing Clemson as 0-0 in the standings box, in order to keep it consistent. Perhaps saying "Clemson (7-0 ACC)" in the asterisk would help.Ostealthy (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I also just realized that I completely missed the source you gave that explicitly referenced the ACC announcing that the games wouldn't count in the standings. That would make for a better source than what I had used. Ostealthy (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated List of current ACC football announcers for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Amherst College athletic teams were renamed Mammoths from Lord Jeffs nearly a year ago. I've attempted to push through renaming of the categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy as this is totally non-controversial. The speedy move has been opposed by one editor. Can you please comment? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)