Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Shortcut

More colors to delete

[edit]

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

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

These are pretty egregious cases of overuse of overwhelming colors. It would be great if someone with knowledge of color coding could jump in and delete the colors. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on these egregious colors. These are also rampant on conference season articles (e.g. 2024 Big Ten Conference football season. And what about the use of colors in the tables of the "game summaries" sections of team season articles, e.g. 2024 Michigan Wolverines football team#Game summaries. I think we could so without the colors there too. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider making a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. It seems a matter of stripping out based on the color pattern. Unless someone wanted to do manual brute force.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to give it a shot. I'll make sure that I preview everything before I submit it to make sure I did it properly and not screwing anything up.Greenday61892 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I was able to take care of 2024 Big Ten Conference football season. However, whoever added the colors in was totally inconsistent with their piping from section to section (some versions of their piping being used literally once), so find and replace was almost entirely useless... so I have to sit and take a bit of time to consider whether I have the time to volunteer in order to continue this task for other articles. I'd love to because I'm in complete agreement that the colors are major eyesores, but if no one else is able to take it on it might be a bit before it's done. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I think I figured out a way to still be able to use F&R. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did most of NCAA Division I FBS passing leaders with a series of regular expressions. There's a few that didn't get captured that need to be cleaned up. Also, now that we can actually see the red links, there are some typos to correct (which were always there). Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I should add now that I think of it too, if it's decided to switch to the templates with borders, it should of course be for all matchups for consistency, not just the ones that need them more. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has objected to team colors for rivalry articles when it's just two or three different colors. The rivalry articles use Template:NCAA color cell, which has a border field that can used to add a border with the secondary team color. But I don't think adding borders is a great idea for rivalry results tables because we'll be going from two colors to four, getting closer to the rainbows we're trying to avoid. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. What should we do about the instances like Kansas/KSU where the colors in the table as they currently stand are very similar? There's some that I can't think of off the top of my head at the moment that are even closer than that pair. I was thinking that the borders would create a contrast to better distinguish them, but I get the not wanting to add even more colors as well. Greenday61892 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes to stadium capacities

[edit]

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

Their last edit at California Memorial Stadium contradicted the exisitng source. I left them a talk page message about sourcing their changes. It could be a technicality about tarps, but it needs sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor quite possibly may be a sock of 72.228.166.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who made similar edits, was previously banned, and just got banned again. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has resurfaced today, apparantly, making dozens of unsourced changes as 67.241.182.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redshirt

[edit]

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

National Finalist

[edit]

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

The 1932 Rose Bowl was a national championship game between No. 1 Tulane and No. 2 USC. The teams topped the end-of-season poll, and the committee elected to award the Albert Russel Erskine Trophy for the national championship to the winner on the gridiron.
That game is no less of a "national championship game" than, say, the 1995 Orange Bowl. It's arguably more of one, as the Bowl Coalition's game (1) did not award a trophy and their champion was still at the mercy of the polls and (2) was a No. 1 vs. No. 3 matchup that left out Penn State.
If the "National Finalist" field exists in the infobox, Tulane and USC should definitely be tallied for the 1931 season. I've previously added it to their inboxes, with citations: Tulane, USC.
Pre-1992 national championship games are collected at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Historic occurrences. I don't necessarily think all of the games there should be immediately added to every team's infobox, but there you'll find citations for our current crop of historic NCGs. Help appreciated on expansion or research on that list.
PK-WIKI (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, we are talking about the NatlFinalist field in Template:Infobox college football team. See examples at Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, Alabama Crimson Tide football, Michigan Wolverines football, Miami Hurricanes football, etc. Designating "finalists" in this way before CFP, the BCS, or, moreover, the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance, seems rather tenuous and OR-ish. It might be a good idea to eliminate this field altogether. At the least, we should restrict it to finalists of tournaments, i.e. BCS-onward or CFP-onward for FBS, and NCAA/NAIA tourneys for lower divisions. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah barring some sources I'm completely missing I'm going to second @Jweiss11's suggestion. Claimed national titles and unclaimed national titles are easy to cite. The National Finalist category pre-1992 seems to open up about a million can of worms and does strike me as rather OR-ish, barring some sources I simply don't know about. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Feels weird to have editors deciding who's a national finalist and who's not without some sort of all-encompassing NCAA list or the like. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"National championship games" existed for decades prior to 1992. They are well covered in reliable sources; this is not original research. USC played back-to-back national championship games for national championship trophies in 1931 and 1932.
While we might think of it now as an "era", the Bowl Coalition was in reality a minor scheduling agreement between some of the existing bowls. One of their goals was to more reliably set up national championship games... the exact kind of existing NCGs that capped the 1985-1988 seasons in the Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl. Note that an NCG was not guaranteed post-1992: the No. 1 SEC champion (Sugar Bowl) could never match the No. 2 Big Eight champion (Orange Bowl) for example. That's setting aside that the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Rose Bowl weren't involved at all. The Bowl Coalition was a continuation of the existing Bowl system meant to offer some increased opportunity to schedule more of the existing "ad hoc" NCGs that had existed for decades.
There is zero difference between the 1988 Orange Bowl and the 1994 Orange Bowl. Both were No. 1 vs. No. 2 national championship games, seeded in the same manner. If we are including one we must include the other.
Teams like 1931 Tulane, 1932 Pitt, 1969 Arkansas, 1971 Alabama and 1973 Alabama absolutely deserve to be marked as "National Finalists" if that field exists. They played in a national championship game with a national championship trophy at stake. This is covered by reliable sources and by the very definition of the term.
PK-WIKI (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PK-WIKI, yes, national championships existed before the BCS, but "national championships games" were tenuous and contingent on the stars aligning just right. Do any sources pre-BCS use the verbiage "national championship finalist"? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance NCGs were also tenuous and contingent on the stars aligning just right. And the stars DIDN'T align... the 1995 Orange Bowl omitted undefeated No. 2 Penn State. Luckily for the Coalition, that didn't result in a split title. The 1998 Orange Bowl didn't include No. 1 Michigan, eventual AP champion, but the "NCG" was saved by the Coaches voting for a retiring Tom Osborne. National championship games existed before the BCS, before the CFP. Adding a strict cutoff for only BCS or CFP "finalists" is what would be WP:OR. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Historic occurrences" lists games that weren't even #1 vs #2. Are these WP-created selection criteria? The same section also says (unsourced) Despite the promotional billing, in several instances there were plausible scenarios for a third team to be selected as national champion by the major selectors, depending on outcomes of other games.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The selection criteria is that the games were referred to by cited reliable sources as a "national championship game". PK-WIKI (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PK, I agree that NCs and NC games were still pretty tenous/contigent during the Bowl Coalition / Alliance era, as two major conferences and one major bowl were not a part. But they were less tenuous than before. Let me reiterate a key question from above: do any sources pre-BCS use the verbiage "national championship finalist"? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a difficult phrase to search for and isolate, so I'm not sure I currently have the answer. But when the Associated Press writes a contemporary story headlined "Team Beaten in National Championship Game Due Home Tuesday" detailing the "35 green shirted heroes" returning home with accolades, IMO that's substantially the same treatment as calling them a "finalist".
I'm also not clear that any BCS-era sources use that phrasing. It's probably more from the CFP as a virtue of there being semifinal and final rounds.
Suggestion: "National championship game appearances: 1 (1931)" might be better / more inclusive phrasing for the infobox. This would also eliminate the issue with Michigan etc. where "National finalist" somewhat implies that they lost the game (which is the original issue that spawned this entire discussion).
P.S. note that in the AP column directly below the one I linked to above, they tell us that the Dickinson System trophy for 1931 was also awarded based on the results of the Rose Bowl NCG and not solely by math. That's newly discovered info that should be added to Wikipedia. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PK, "National championship game appearances" is an improvement in terms of clarity over "National finalist", but it is pretty wordy for an infobox field label. I lean toward just eliminating the field altogether. Certainly go ahead and add that detail about 1931 to the relevant articles! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just talking infobox only, its inclusion goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to be lean and mean. Programs are more defined by their actual championships, not being close. Otherwise, we get a mess like in basketball e.g. UCLA Bruins men's basketball, Duke Blue Devils men's basketball, Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball. —Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independents records templates before 1962

[edit]

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

Bowl games and WP:LIVESCORES

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I try to distinguish what I personally do (I generally dont do in-game updates) versus what others want to do. I have less of an issue with scoring events or quarter score updates, if cited, as the content presumably will be retained in future versions. To that extent, I have a bigger issue with NFL and MLB updates that churn running in-season and career stats after every game; it just clogs up watchlists, page history, and servers for content that's not retained. —Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LIVESCORES is a clause in the MOS for the snooker project so it has no enforcement power for college football or any other sports besides snooker. Has there been a consensus reached in this college football project or the general sports project? Left guide (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any prior consensus being reached here (college football project) or more broadly in general sports on this topic. Personally, I am in favor of allowing (not reverting) in-game updates of scoring plays (example above), when such updates are noting factual events and are not being displayed in the article's infobox (the infobox scoreline should be populated upon completion of the event). Other editors are welcome to add comment to see if we reach consensus. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Minimums for career leaderboard eligibility

[edit]

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

Rather than "how we're determining minimums", it would seem the discussion should start with "what do reliable sources use as minimums". Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust: I redirected that discussion here (since there's already a response here) to avoid a fragemented disucssion.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
875 is also at the NCAA's record book. Incidentally, they don't have a list of leaders for completion percentage. Is it WP:UNDUE to track? —Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

2024 Bowl page articles

[edit]

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

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

Individual bowl game articles have been kept overwhelmingly at AfD time and time again, since each bowl game gets fairly extensive standalone coverage from sources, but like you said this probably isn't the time/place for that discussion. As for this year's, I think it would be rather pointless to go through and redirect them at this point since they'll just all be recreated in about a month when matchups are announced, though maybe the community could come up with some sort of consensus one way or the other as to when we should wait to start making bowl game articles last year? I used to be pretty involved with this but I don't create as many as I used to so I feel the opinions of others who are more involved would be quite valuable. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have two differing views on this. For the 2024–25 articles that already exist, removing their content (making them redirects) will just create churn, as they're all going to re-exist in a few week's time. That said, I do think the slate of bowl game articles are getting created "too soon". I looked at individual Alamo Bowl (picked randomly) articles, to see when they were created:
I think that, in future seasons, waiting until something like November 15 or December 1 (given that bowl seasons typically starts around December 15) to create a season's slate of individual bowl game articles would make sense. The overall bowl article can be created earlier, although I noticed that 2024–25 NCAA football bowl games was created on February 20, 2024, which also feels "too soon". Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 Alamo Bowl (and others) can elaborate on how the Pac-12 is still in the mix.[1]. —Bagumba (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556: Agreed. I am partly to blame for some of the bowl articles existing very early (there were a few years that I went through in June, right after the full bowl schedule was announced, and created all of them as stubs), and I would support a compromise that keeps those links red until later in the season. Just a matter of how to enforce that, especially with editors that aren't as closely involved with WP:CFB and don't check the talk page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a lightweight solution is to draftify it (avoids resources of an AfD). Per WP:DRAFTREASON:

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

It doesn't delete something that will eventually be created. Not sure if there's any arguments against this. —Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that exceptions should be made in certain instances. If a bowl game has gotten moved for some reason that probably adds some notability in advance of the event. I just think some community consensus would be good. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People should be able to judge by the content and cited sources what is best. WP:IAR always applies. —Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NRIVALRY

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

More schedule table ridiculousness

[edit]

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

I'd also suggest adding something to the user's talk page; some other editors have raised issue there with recent contributions by this person. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UCO2009bluejay, I just restored your edits, as did Jeffrey R. Clark before me. Smitty Smitty, eternal links should almost never be embedded into the body of an article like in these schedule tables. In-line citations should be used instead. The article also suffered from team color rainbow madness as well, if anyone wants to address that. It's a rampant problem on these conference season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with UCO2009bluejay's edit is they only did it for 13 games and left the remainder of the season the same. So it should either be done for all of them or none of them. I don't think citations should be used for any of the games, as it has never be done in the past Big 12 seasons at all. As far as the team colors, I've just been keeping it in line with the previous seasons. Smitty Smitty (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smitty, it's a lot of work do all of those conversions in one edit. Fixing 13 games is progress. What's been done with the external links for prior Big 12 season is a bad habit that should stop now. There is no Big 12 specific policy or point of style here. Moreover, the issue is more fundamental than the scope of all college football, or all sports. The color issue is a persisent problem that has been discussed here before. In no way was I assigning blame to you for that. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be better to just have one link to the Big 12 results page at the top of the schedule versus having 100+ links to every single game? Smitty Smitty (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished converting all the external links to inline cites.--Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 23:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey R. Clark and Smitty Smitty, thanks to you both for cleaning up this article! Jweiss11 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: 1927 Georgia vs. Yale football game

[edit]

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

Stand-alone articles for 100-point games

[edit]

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

Question: how many 100+ point games have there been? Neutral question; it would help clarify how extra-ordinary such games are. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot all-time. But only three in the last 50 years. See List of 100-point games in college football. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable enough for their own articles. Rockford beating Trinity Bible 105-0 is the biggest Margin of victory in d3 football history! Portland State beating Delaware State 105-0 is the biggest Margin of victory in modern D1 history(since FCS and FBS was created in 1978) Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jweiss11, the list is quite helpful. Given the rarity of this occurring in the past 50 years, and what looks to be a good number of citations, articles about these two games doesn't strike me as problematic. In contrast, content about such games in earlier years, when it looks to have been non-extraordinary, would seem better placed in team-year articles. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but to establish that, we need to have WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources ... and it needs to be "enduring" beyond reportage in the immediate wake of the game. Cbl62 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of individual bowl games

[edit]
I believe many individual bowl games would fail WP:NEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. And indeed, while any editor is free to nominate etc. etc., I have no current intent of doing so. I'm looking to understand the application of criteria. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event notability criteria applies the same as it does any other topic area; how well-enforced it is depends on how much folks care about holding the line on notability for quality control, and how much effort they're willing to volunteer in such an endeavor. One possible idea would be to merge the non-notable ones into each season's article for bowl games collectively i.e. 2017–18 NCAA football bowl games. But one big hurdle is that it would probably take a lot of time researching per WP:BEFORE since the community may not take kindly to merges or deletions being done willy-nilly en masse. Some may look non-notable on the surface, but actually have good-quality secondary coverage when perusing through Google Books, etc. Left guide (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of college football history is best told IMO through season articles rather than thousands of articles on individual games. For this reason, I think we should limit game articles by strictly enforcing guidelines such as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. As for bowl games, WP:SPORTSEVENT, prong 2, unfortunately doesn't distinguish between major bowls and things like the 1972 Pioneer Bowl. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: bowl games, I'd assume that the host city's press combined with those of a game's respective teams, at a minimum, would account for CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps that's changed with the watered-down bowl system. A few AfDs that deleted individual bowl pages could cause SPORTSEVENT to be revisited. —Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The host city's press is typically WP:ROUTINE coverage, and sources published by the game's respective teams wouldn't be considered independent. Left guide (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the local press for the respective teams, not the school's themselves. Re: the bowl city's coverage, I used to live in a city that would write about past matchups often—not sure if that's the exception or the norm. —Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
write about past matchups often Yes, that's the type of secondary WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that would satisfy WP:NEVENT, compared to routine previews and recaps published less than a week before and after the game. Left guide (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review of football coach (Ashley Cornwell)

[edit]

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

The draft is located at here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any feedback? When and how should I resubmit this page? Patwomfcs (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Patwomfcs I'm not an AfC/draft submission expert, but it doesn't look like it's currently submitted and available for review; you can resubmit it by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button on the AfC template at the top of the page and following whatever further instructions there are. Just make sure the feedback from the previous two declines have been addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that someone who does not review sports pages will be in charge of submitting it. I was looking at the standards for college football coaches and this does met requirements for this community, but not others. Will submit right now with a note. Patwomfcs (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page was declined again due to the ESPN Feature being cited on Youtube. Any guidance? Can anyone help get this approved? Patwomfcs (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patwomfcs, why don't you remove all the citations to YouTube videos and any content that can only be attributed to those citations? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The next step should not be finding someone that will accept the article as is, the next step should be improving the article so that it meets the guidelines and can get passed by any reviewer. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear why extended discussion about a single declined draft is happening here on a WikiProject talk page (which could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOP) especially without notifying the reviewers, when the draft talk page (which is currently empty) at Draft talk:Ashley Cornwell is the appropriate venue for this. The proper approach would be to start a thread there pinging the three reviewers, and leaving a notice here if wider input is desired. Left guide (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout

[edit]

I feel like I brought this up before but I can't find it. I think the current team season format lacks an appropriate place for a prose discussion of in-season events. Take 2024 Florida State Seminoles football team--the firing of three assistants should be mentioned, but the only real place to do it is in the lead. Similarly, the Stalions controversy is in the lead of 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team but not otherwise discussed in prose. Looking at 1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team, a good article, maybe it's as simple as renaming "Game summaries" to "In-season" or something like that? Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format need a bunch of updating, but I'm not sure the standard "Game summaries" is a problem. There are a number of places the firing of assistant coaches could be mentioned on 2024 Florida State Seminoles football team, like in the "at No. 10 Notre Dame" section, since this happened in the aftermath of that game. Or in the "Coaching staff" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template for media guides and programs?

[edit]

Is there an existing citation template that works well for media guides and programs? Doing some updating of basketball articles and hard to find a good fit. Alternatively, should sports projects collaborate to create a template for citing sports periodicals - these are often an excellent source for factual info about players, coaches and teams. Thanks for any thoughts. Rikster2 (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use either {{cite web}} or {{cite magazine}} - one example is at 2014 Texas Bowl, FN 5. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Bow Down to Washington:
<ref name="FirstPrinting1915Program">{{cite magazine |magazine=University of Washington Football Programs |title=Souvenir program, football game : University of Washington vs. University of California, Saturday, November 13, 1915, Denny Field, Seattle, Washington |publisher=University of Washington Associated Students |url=https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/pioneerlife/id/5519/rec/ |date=November 13, 1915 |access-date=January 24, 2022 |location=[[Denny Field (Washington)|Denny Field]] |page=26}}</ref>
PK-WIKI (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used {{cite book}} for offline media guides before (because cite web requires a url). —Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the media guides I've cited are ones for recent seasons that are available online. For those I've used {{cite web}}. I've used {{cite journal}} for yearbooks, e.g. at 1920 Southwest Texas State Bobcats football team. PK-WIKI, note that the citation for 1915 Washington football program above is misusing the location field. That's intended for the city location of the publisher, not the location of an event covered. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I typically use "cite magazine" for team media guides and I believe it is sufficient here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:2024OPENLETTER

[edit]

Of interest to the community as a whole. Cbl62 (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recording the 12-team College Football Playoff in infoboxes and head coaching record tables

[edit]

Now the the College Football Playoff has expanded to 12 teams, some teams will be playing three and possibly four playoff games. We need to think about how we are going to capture this in the infoboxes of team season articles (using {{Infobox college sports team season}}) and head coaching record tables. For teams that made it to the national title game during the four-team playoff era, we've noted both the semfinal bowl game and the national title game; see 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team, Kirby Smart#Head coaching record. We've achieved this by hacking the bowl/playoff fields, intended to report just one result, with break tags. We've done the same for some rare examples from decades back when teams played multiple minor bowls; see: 1948 Hardin–Simmons Cowboys football team, Warren B. Woodson#Head coaching record. Note that for sub-FBS playoff tournaments (NCAA and NAIA), our practice is to only record the result of the final playoff game that teams played, see: 2021 North Dakota State Bison football team, Matt Entz.

I think we are going to want to report each CFP result in these infoboxes and record tables given that the quarterfinals, semis, and champinship games will all have their own stand-alone articles. For the first-round games, I think we going to detail those at 2024–25 College Football Playoff, but that's another article there. So we should probably add some fields to {{Infobox college sports team season}} (bowl2, bowl_result2, etc) and {{CFB Yearly Record Entry}} (bowlname2, bowloutcome2 etc). In the head coaching record tables, we also use a dagger (†) to note bowl/playoff games the were part of the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS, and CFP. This notation is driven by the field named "bcsbowl". That should probably be renamed and reworked, so that when it is activated, the daggers will apply to all the mutliple bowl/playoff results. For the four-team playoff era, we've also hacked this by manually entering a superscripted dagger.

Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally don't think we should include every playoff result in a season infobox. Otherwise, we could have four game rsults in an infobox which seems like toom much. How does basketball handle it? Just the Final Four? My inclination would be to limit infobox to Final Four. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought would be to note the furthest a team advanced in the bracket: CFP first round (4 teams), CFP quarterfinalist (4 teams), CFP semifinalist (2 teams), CFP finalist (1 team), or CFP champion (1 team). That they happened to play in the XYZ Bowl is now secondary in the overall scheme of CFP. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl, for college basketball, only the final game is recorded in team season infoboxes and head coaching record tables; 2017–18 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team and Jay Wright (basketball)#Head coaching record. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthest advance makes sense, as Dmoore suggested. Cbl62 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each round in the basketball tournament isn't a named, historic Bowl Game. This year in the 2024–25 College Football Playoff a team will be, say, the Rose Bowl champion and Orange Bowl champion. Both should be listed in all relevant infoboxes, just as those same historic New Year's Six bowl game championships are listed in every past CFB team's infobox. The unnamed on-campus games are a different matter and can likely be excluded. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62 and Dmoore5556, would you keep things as is for the four-team playoff era (2014–2023)? What about the head coaching record tables? PK-WIKI, for teams that lose in an on-campus first-round playoff games, I think we'll certatinly want to reflect that in the infoboxes and head coaching record tables, no? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to the above question from Jweiss11) Yes, I would go back and trim infoboxes for playoff participants in the CFP era. Take for example 2021 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. All that needs to be said in "banner" area of the infobox is about 1/3 of what is there: SEC champion, CFP National Championship finalist. That they won the SEC's Western Division on the way to becoming overall SEC champion, or won the Cotton Bowl to get a berth into the CFP final, is detail that (in my view) doesn't belong in the infobox and is amply covered elswhere (note in particular the complete standings for both SEC divisions apearing just below the infobox). Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with removing "Cotton Bowl Classic champion" from 2021 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. Not sure if that's what you're referring to, or the games/scores in the section below that. I would lean towards possibly removing those; the information is contained elsewhere and it's too busy with multiple post-regular-season games. But we must at least list all championships/bowls won, plus a single line below indicating their final placement in the CFP: CFP National Champion, Finalist, Semifinalist, Quarterfinalist, 12-team participant, etc. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the College Football Playoff, the bowl games that serve as the semifinals (and now quarterfinals) are superfluous to the overall CFP outcome. The 2021 Alabama team was a CFP finalist; that's their key accomplishment with regards to postseason play. That they won whichever bowl game was designated to serve as their semifinal that season, is certainly part of the team's history and the bowl's history, but it's now a distraction (especially with the score quoted) in the individual team's infobox. As I said below in a parallel reply, if that's a bridge too far, let's find what we can agreed to trim back in order to address "banner" area bloating. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could also save some infobox space by removing the results of the games (perhaps just displaying "Rose Bowl champion" and "Orange Bowl champion" which would take two lines instead of four), though we'd have to come up with some way to display a loss in one of those games. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dmoore5556, I don't see a problem with the 2021 Alabama infobox. It seems like you're suggesting that we kill conference division titles and conference championship games from the infobox. Would you want to do that across the board, even for teams that won a conference division title, but didn't win the conference, like 2022 LSU Tigers football team and 2022 Alabama Crimson Tide football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a team wins its overall conference, as Alabama did in 2021, I see no need to display that they also won their division. SEC champion is sufficient, in my view, without adding SEC Western Division champion right below it. If that's a bridge too far, I would at a minimum remove the score of the SEC championship game. Same for bowl games—list the winning team as "XYZ Bowl champion"; no need for quoting the game score. I hope we can come to agreement that the infobox "banner" areas are bloated and take some reasonable actions to thin them, else it will just get worse. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, this is not just about coaches. This issue also strikes a fundamental difference between college football and basketball: the stand-alone bowl game. Furthermore, we should note that college basketball is way behind college football here on Wikiepdia in terms of standardization and integrity of templated content. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we keep doing what we're doing in the stand-alone bowl game, and we treat the CFP tournament as we would March Madness or the NIT. pbp 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to merge Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography into Template:Infobox NFL biography

[edit]

Discussion here ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some example infoboxes

[edit]

Below, from left to right:

1) current infobox with heavy banner area
2) really thin banner area
3) compromise (?) banner area
4) same as number 3, but with the banners in chronological order, starting with oldest at top.

Input welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would want numbers 2 and 3 to be in chronological order. Conference, Bowl, NCG. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added number 4 above: same as number 3, with the banners in chronological order, starting with oldest at top. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you above that the "SEC Western Division champion" should be removed for teams that end up winning the overall conference championship. The loser of the CCG like 2021 Georgia Bulldogs football team should retain their listed divisional championship. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something other than 1. Seems undue to include the score and opponent name of individual games in the infobox where less is more per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

    The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

    Having this info so prominently displayed cheapens and dilutes the encyclopedic value of the whole infobox. Left guide (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel the same about a traditional single-bowl season such as 1973 Alabama Crimson Tide football team? Is it the multiple games or any and all bowl games/opponents/scores? PK-WIKI (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 is my preference. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, yes, I could see maybe dropping the scores of the postseason games, but the decisions and even opponents are more vital than a lot of other stuff in these infoboxes, like coordinators, captains, team MVPs, and offensive/defensive schemes. We have stand-alone articles for 2021 SEC Championship Game and 2021 Cotton Bowl Classic for a reason, because they are of high signficance, and thus they warrant mention and linking in the 2021 Alabama infobox. "CFP National Championship finalist" is not a championship, and thus does not belong in the champion field. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the expanded playoffs, the current approach could yield something like the below. If editors like it, no further action required. That said, I would prefer to see some reduction in line with the less-is-more approach. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 3 but switch hierarchy remove bowl games College basketball has national champion, conference tourney, conference regular, in-season tournament, then in a separate box the finale tournament game result or final four. I would prefer option 3 but with "official" national champions, (runner-ups [BCS, bowl coalition/alliance], CFP appearance,) conference championships. If we have 3 or 4 bowl games that can be unweildy. My rationale:Is a SEC championship more prevalent than a national championship? I do see the idea of what is in the NFL team season infobox as being chronological, but this is a completely separate "playoff finish" parameter.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial statement: Is having coordinators necessary? The NFL infobox has the parameter but it is seldom used, even in current-season articles. Why do we use "team" instead of "season" anyway?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1986 New York Giants season and 1994 San Francisco 49ers season, two memorable Super Bowl champs that popped into my head, list coordinators in the infobox. I would keep the coordinators. They are often pretty key to the identity of a team. If and when we list multiple posteason games, they should be listed in chronological order. But championships should be listed in order of promience: 1) national 2) conference 3) division 4) bowl 5) regional (e.g. Lambert-Meadowlands Trophy as in 1982 Penn State Nittany Lions football team). As for why we use "team" instead of season", that was a convention decided upon nearly 20 years ago. I suppose we chould change it if we wanted to, but that would require renaming tens of thousands of articles and updating hundreds of thousands of links (if we want to be neat around it and avoid redirects) across multiple college sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is having coordinators necessary?"—of course not, in the context of almost nothing on Wikipedia being "necessary". Useful such that it justifies the consumption of infobox space? I'd say no, especially co-something coordinators. There are specific examples of various people/events/ephemera associated with a specific team or game that could arguably be placed in an infobox; that doesn't justify it for the general case. Ultimately, either editors here believe the infobox, especially for recent teams with extended postseasons (especially this upcoming CFP), is bloated to the point that a trim would be an improvement, or not. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football&oldid=1258782128"