Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Sep2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Regarding the infoboxes on the team-year pages

I believe this needs to be made into an actual template along with some minor changes. For one, the grid lines need to go. Keep horizontal lines, but delete the vertical lines. I'm going to look more into this later, but if it is going to be used on all the team-year pages, a standard needs to be set.--NMajdan•talk 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this kind of information, but I don't think it needs to all be on every yearly team page. Maybe just Coach/Coordinators for that year, the record, and the end-of-season ranking (and probably OK to have during-season too as long as it's kept up to date, but chances are good that it won't). Things like conference, offensive and defensive schemes, and home stadum aren't likely to change from year-to-year, so it's not really necessary to have them on this page. z4ns4tsu\talk 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what boxes are you talking about? Could you point to some examples please? MECU≈talk 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The infoboxes that have been placed on a majority of the team-year pages. See 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team for an example and go look at other 2006 team pages.--NMajdan•talk 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh. Thanks. I'm just stupid today. I'm fine with creating a template for it. Someone throw one together for starters on a sandbox or something and we can go from there. MECU≈talk 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a stab at a template. See User:Mecu/SeasonTemplate. Comments? Suggestions? Improvements? Please make them here. MECU≈talk 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good start. Some of my opinions:
  • I dislike the grid lines. I say get rid of them altogether.
  • Align "Ranking" in the middle of the rowspan.
Other than that, it looks good.--NMajdan•talk 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, all done. I made a few other changes, most importantly to handle the Independent teams. Some cleanup with the table frames is still needed (like removing the "lines" in the rankings when it shows" is needed). Also need to figure out what categories to have the template auto-add. Any other input? MECU≈talk 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this thing ready to go live yet, Mecu?--NMajdan•talk 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, other than the lines problem which is very minor. What's a good name for it? {{NCAAFootballSeason}}? I can move/create it once a good name is chosen. --MECU≈talk 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Or something like {{NCAATeamFootballSeason}}. I think having team in there is important so is specifies this is a template for a specific team page.--NMajdan•talk 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. As you can see from above, it's created. It automatically puts the page into Category for like 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season so you can remove that from the page if it's already there. --MECU≈talk 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I might curse myself for suggesting this since I think it will be hard to implement, but should we add a field for BCS ranking? I don't think Harris poll ranking should be added though, but I could do that as well. --MECU≈talk 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
A BCS ranking would be nice during the season, but after the final games, its meaningless. Sure it picks who plays in what bowls, but it is not updated after the bowls. So we would have to make sure that field was blank after the season is over (for instance, the last BCS poll last year has Texas #2). So its up to you. I also left another comment on the talk page of the template.--NMajdan•talk 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yah, that's exactally what I was thinking. So, because of the difficult technical programming I would have to achieve and the limited usefulness, I'm saying ney. I also already fixed the Division error on my part and added another optional feature for ImageSize so the OU image doesn't look so big and you can trim it down as needed (if you don't specify it, it defaults to 150). --MECU≈talk 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mascots & Nickname Articles

I am attempting to fill in the mascots on the Team Articles chart, and I am looking for some thoughts on a part of this. For many teams (for example, Baylor) have a seperate costumed mascot and a live mascot (in Baylor's case, Bruiser & Judge). Should we have seperate pages for each in these cases, or a combined page, as many of them (with the possible exception of Auburn's War Eagle) come from the same origins? Looking for thoughts on this matter.... ToddC4176 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that you will not be able to find enough good (i.e. citable) information for two separate articles for most schools. Notable exceptions would be for programs like Texas where Bevo is going to have enough information for a dedicated article, even if Hook 'em doesn't. Personally, I think that it would be fine for most schools to have just a School Mascots page (or even just section on their athletics page) and only the really recognizable or notable mascots have their own page (Bevo, Sooner Schooner, Uga, etc.). z4ns4tsu\talk 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bevo and Hook 'em Horns both have fairly extensive (and referenced) articles. But for a counter-example, the 3 Red River Shootout trophies are combined into one article. So, I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule. Just create the page(s) and they can be split or merged later as needed. Johntex\talk 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I just came accross this List of U.S. college mascots article. While it probably shouldn't be part of this project, we should check it out to see what pages exist and add/link to ones that aren't there. They didn't have Ralphie linked, so I did that, for example. --MECU≈talk 12:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

2004 NCAA Division I-A football rankings

I've created the bare bones for the 2004 NCAA Division I-A football rankings page, if anyone wants to help fill in the tables that would be great. VegaDark 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

USC and OU were 1/2 all year, I believe that was a first (to have both 1 and 2 locked throughout). --Bobak 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember there being some discussion of it, yeah. I don't remember if it was a first, but I'm pretty sure it had been a long time. z4ns4tsu\talk 22:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This might be harder to create since it'll be harder finder sources with a week-by-week account of all major polls. Here are some preseason polls.--NMajdan•talk 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, check this book: ESPN College Football Encyclopedia: The Complete History of the Game ; it has week-by-week for all seasons up to last season! I can't remember if it has first place votes, though... --Bobak 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Script for rankings tables

Okay, so we have a really good start on the season rankings pages with 2005 already a featured list and 2006 coming along nicely. We also recently got started on 2004 and it's about 10% complete...maybe less. I've been thinking about other cool things that we could do with these tables, though, and I came up with an idea that I want to bounce off of this group before I start trying to implement it. I think it would be really neat if you could click on a cell in the table and then all other cells for that team would be highlighted so you could easily see how a team moved in the rankings. I'll start the brainstorming here and feel free to jump in and add your thoughts.

  • Requirements
    • Should be built in javascript so that it matches the other scripts on WP
    • Should have as low as possible server load...javascript and vbscript both have none, so that's good
    • Should not have to click on team's name or have each instance a hyperlink (aesthetics mostly)
  • Problems
    • Would have to redo all the tables and name each cell (probably)
    • Would have to figure out how to read contents of cell and match the correct team name no matter the record or number of votes (regular expression on the cell value almost definitely)
    • Would have to attach to the page somehow (no idea about WP policy on custom scripts)
    • Would take a ton of work to get it going and a lot of sandbox testing before putting it live
    • Have to make sure that adding the script wouldn't change 2005's featured list status

Anyway, add your thoughts and comments. I can write it, but if anyone is a javascript god, it would go faster 'cuz I'm not. I do PHP and vbscript, but javascript is a bit different and I haven't really worked with it much. z4ns4tsu\talk 05:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, all this just so someone could highlight a team to see how they progressed? I'm not sure it's worth the effort for just that. If we could do other things as well then I wouldn't complain about this feature being a part of it. I think having some kid of bot that can create the rankings automatically to take out the boring part of doing it manually would be more useful. Something like on a user sub-page we just list the raw data in an easily editable human format, like:

2006 AP -Week1 1-Ohio State 2-Texas 3- ... -Week2 1-Texas 2-Ohio State 3- ... So that each week, someone just has to type it out on the page. The bot then can put it in the right place, link it, color it rightly, and so forth. It could also check it daily to see if there's some vandalism that us humans didn't catch. Or what about a template for each 1-25? Just pass a few variables and it would make editing easier. I could put that together today. We wouldn't have to go back and redo the existing ones either. Course, tables go horizontal in data but we'd want it to go vertical. I'd have to think on that one. MECU≈talk 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a lot of work for not a lot of reward. I think the effort that would go into that change would be better spent on creating rankings pages for 2004, 2003, etc. There's already enough disdain for javascript on Wikipedia already (many people dislike the javascript dropdowns such as the type used for the GA categories).--NMajdan•talk 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
My idea of using templates for each ranking won't quite work unless someone knows how to join tables together somehow. See User:Mecu/Rankings. It uses User:Mecu/StartRanking, User:Mecu/Rank and User:Mecu/EndRanking. Feel free to play with those on there to try and get it to work if you wish. MECU≈talk 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

College athletic programs infobox template

Hey, I've created Template:Infobox college athletics, based on an infobox at USC Athletics. It's not football-specific, but it seems sufficient for pages like Missouri Tigers, which for most teams includes all the information on their football programs. If anyone has any suggestions or alterations for it, I'd appreciate your input. I've added it to a few athletic program pages, and will add it to more over the next few days. -Elmer Clark 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, College Athletic pages aren't part of this project. They do (and should) contain some football information, but in general we don't really do too much to them. Also, to list a template to type this {{tl|Infobox college athletics}}. It gets the same end result, so no big deal. --MECU≈talk 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Collaboration of the Month department. I don't care to run it if someone else wants that charge. Nonetheless, please participate and help out. --MECU≈talk 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Rankings Standard

I'd like to propose that if a single ranking is used in an article, that the Coaches Poll be listed. If two are listed, then Coaches and AP Polls be listed, with the Coaches Poll first. Having a standard applied to all articles will make more sense. While there may be exceptions to just listing the AP Poll (ie, split championships), it should then be clearly listed that it is an AP Poll. Otherwise, it should be generally stated that the Coaches Poll is used (such as in the schedule table on the season pages) and if both are used, then it stated which is used where (ie: (Coaches/AP) ). Further, switching the rankings from coaches to AP should be avoided to make any team look better. --MECU≈talk 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, but have one caveat. After the BCS rankings are released, they become the defacto standard across the board in the media (or at least it seems that way to me), so we should try to stick with that whenever possible. This does cause a bit of confusion, however, in season tables when the switch is made, so it will need to be clearly marked. I think this can be accomplished with a footnote, so it's not a big deal, just something we need to be aware of. z4ns4tsu\talk 14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And there's also the problem that the BCS stops before the bowl games, so it doesn't reflect bowl games, while the coaches poll does. I agree BCS should trump Coaches, but since the BCS stops and the Coaches (which feeds into the BCS, which is why I "picked" it) continues and then shows a final update from bowl season, I think just using Coaches polls is fine. We could co-list BCS too, so Coaches/AP/BCS or something like that? But if just one ranking is listed, just coaches still. --MECU≈talk 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I am late to the discussion here. I'll go along with whatever, but I actually think the AP poll is a better choice, for the following reasons:
  1. Longest running poll still in existence
  2. Continues through the bowls
  3. More impartial in the sense that coaches are not voting for their own teams and in the sense that the AP poll has no contract to crown the winner of a single game to be #1. They can still vote however they like.
  4. More likely to be mentioned by most media, since the AP is a media poll. This means less confusion when citing sources.
I agree we should not switch back and forth to make a team look better. Johntex\talk 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Participants list

It may be helpful somewhere to note the specialties of participants (teams, plays, NCAA rules...) Rkevins82 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed this, but it does sound like a good idea. The easiest way to do it would probably be to make a table like this one
User Team Specialties Admin?
Johntex (talk) Texas Bios Yes
Mecu (talk) Colorado Tables, Templates No
Nmajdan (talk) Oklahoma Stats, References No
Z4ns4tsu (talk) Oklahoma Aesthetics, spelling errors No

All those specialties are just guesses, btw (except mine, I know that I'm bad at spelling). What do you think? z4ns4tsu\talk 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If we go forward to this, what do you think about moving the Participants list to its own subpage similar to how Military History does it?--NMajdan•talk 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. I expect that it will eventually get pretty long anyway (and we're already over 50 members), so moving it to a subpage would probably be best. Can you think of any other columns that we should add while we're at it? z4ns4tsu\talk 18:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea. Interesting to see I'm perceived as being interested in bios - you learn a lot about yourself by realizing how others see you!
I think the admin column is very useful as admins are needed for some things, such as difficult page moves. I think, however, we should include a cautionary note with the table reminding people to not single out an admin from this project in hopes of getting special treatment in a dispute or controversy. It is important that admins be impartial.
I suggest one more column, which is the (optional) "sample article" columnn. This column could be used by the editor to list no more than 2 articles they feel they have contributed to. My hope is that this would be a little extra incentive to get a couple of good articles done so you can add them to your entry.
Also, we may someday need a column for active/inactive so perhaps we should consider including it from the beginning? If we do include such a column we need to include some instruction of dealing with it. (I.e. don't mark someone inactive unless you check their contributions and see they have not participated in ____ weeks.) I guess another way to deal with that would be to simply delete them from the column, or simply leave everyone on forever. I don't have a strong opinion about this - just wanted to toss it out there.
Finally, I support making this a subpage due to its inevitable length. Johntex\talk 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I support Johntex's suggestions of adding a 'sample article' column as well as dividing between active and inactive. If I'm correct, I believe MILHIST does this with simple headers ===Active=== and ===Inactive===.--NMajdan•talk 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I created the page here and have added instructions and myself. Take a look and make changes as needed. z4ns4tsu\talk 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I took the initiative and moved all names from the main page to the new subpage to reduce clutter on the main page and redundancy overall. As people notice the change, they can go add their detail to the page. I added a link to the participants page to the project template.--NMajdan•talk 15:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I added back the section on the main page with just a link to the list page. I think that will be less confusing for new members and old alike. The link in the box just got lost in the background clutter for me. z4ns4tsu\talk 16:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard the term "Directional Michigan"?

An article explaining the term, origin, etc. is being put through a deletion nomination (for the sake of full disclosure, I started the article). The main argument seems to be that no one in college football uses it. I (obviously) challenge that notion, however please share your opinion, for or against. Your opinions are your own, I won't take anything personally --I just people who actually (ostensibly) pay attention to CFB to have some input, then I'll be more comfortable with any result. My position is stated on the AfD page. --Bobak 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That AfD page is here, btw. z4ns4tsu\talk 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I've never seen a 5-2 vote get called "no consensus" before. Oh well, at least the page was kept. z4ns4tsu\talk 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive-Sep2006&oldid=1144734003"