Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Future non-conference opponents

All,

Is it worth having a "future non-conference opponents" section in the football articles? We have users who add to them, but no one ever goes and updates the boxes. I just edited one that still had 2017 in it, and I have found others (just a few) that still had 2016 and before on them. The other problem is that these sections also violate WP:OVERLINK... there are some that overkill on linking the same article. Thoughts? Corky 02:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a fan of such sections. Cbl62 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think in the past some future season articles have been deleted, so some use this method as a bureaucratic workaround to park information. Personally, I think if there's verifiable info like opponents and recruits of future seasons of prominent programs, just create the future article. It's a waste of time to have to shuttle text around. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team, consensus was to keep articles on the next season. Frankly, I think seasons 2 or more years away are conceptually no different if it's verifiable. WP:CRYSTAL does not preclude this: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, I don't think this is much of a solution. Non-conference opponents can be scheduled up to 10 years in advance. For example, Michigan and Texas already have each other on the schedule for 2027, exact date TBD. I don't think we want 2027 seasons articles to be created now or anytime soon. There'd be hardly anything to wrote about them. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not perfect. What would you propose?—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, either have these sections in the main program articles or don't. But future season articles are not a substitute. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would propose leaving the "Future non-conference opponents" sections alone. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Why should we keep them if no one is going to update them? All that gets updated is additions of new games/years. Previous years don't get removed. If we're not going to update them fully, we don't need the sections. It's not really important info, anyway, is it? Corky 22:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

IMO, if they're not going to be regularly updated, they'd be better off deleted. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Loyola Marymount Lions football

I have nominated Category:Loyola Marymount Lions football and two subcategories for renaming. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Rankings question

Hey, I've tried adding a rankings table to 2000 Oklahoma Sooners football team and whenever I try to cut off the end of the rankings table it still has some sort of error message. How can this be remedied.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay: I set the poll1firstweek and poll2firstweek to zero instead of having them blank, seemed to fix it.

Yes it did, that was my first time trying to use it. Thank you.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with AfC

This is User:Cbl62. I have opened this alt account for temporary use due to log in problems. For more than a decade, I used the same simple password for my account. However, earlier this year, I received notices regarding attempts to hack my account, leading me to create a far more complex password. Unfortunately, that password was sufficiently complex that I am now unable to recall what it was. I am seeking input on how to reset my password. Any assistance in this regard would be appreciated. Also, if anyone here is familiar with the processes at Articles for Creation, assistance would be appreciated in moving the following out of Draft space: Draft:1935 Saint Mary's Gaels football team, Draft:1937 Saint Mary's Gaels football team, Draft:1940 Saint Mary's Gaels football team, Draft:1941 Saint Mary's Gaels football team, Draft:1942 Saint Mary's Gaels football team, Draft:1943 Saint Mary's Gaels football team. SonofCbl (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@SonofCbl: For accessing your old account, the only way to recover it is if you have/had an email address associated with it. If you are still logged into that account on a different computer, you could go to "preferences" and set an email address, then have a password reminder sent to that address. For the drafts, are you asking for physical help moving them (because you are not auto-confirmed and can't move them) or are you asking how to submit them for review? If the latter, there is a button you can click in the template that will submit the articles for review. Since the assistance desired isn't especially specific to college football (help with your account, general help submitting drafts), you may wish to pose further questions of this type at WP:HELPDESK. --B (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I had a now-defunct aol email account back in 2007 when I started on Wikipedia. And yes, my temp account is not yet autoconfirmed. SonofCbl (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the bother. My browser refreshed my password. Problem solved! SonofCbl now officially deep-sixed. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry

Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry was recently created by User:CalebHughes. Is this a legit rivalry? I'm thinking no. Seems more like just two teams that played in the same conference for about 35 years. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

IMO, speaking as an Arkansas fan, no. I know that just being an Arkansas fan does not make me all-knowing, however, so I did a little Googling and found these:
(1) Names series as "rivalry" in title but does not mention a rivalry in the article
(2) Names Arkansas as TTU's fifth-biggest rival, but stated that they are "former Southwest Conference foes" and "won't meet anytime soon"
(3) States "Tech-Arkansas is a wonderful rivalry", but illustrates its point on the fact that they hadn't played since 1991 and schools aren't terribly close
(4) 2015 TTU-Ark game preview from texastech.com that makes no mention of the word "rivalry"
(5) Maybe not a great piece of evidence, but this Fox Sports Southwest article on the top 8 "rivalries we want to come back" doesn't list Arkansas-Tech
(6) Article that names series as "SWC Rivalry", but makes no mention of a rivalry in the article
(7) Names teams as "former Southwest Conference foes"; also states that home-and-home is "renewing a Southwest Conf. rivalry"
So it seems that sources from 2013-15 consider it a rivalry from the days of the Southwest Conference, and if notable then, it is notable now. As much as I do not consider Tech a rival, I would say that this article should be kept, unless sources from the time they played say otherwise. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

College football rivalry AfD

Hello all,

I have nominated Houston-Texas football rivalry for deletion. I am open to reconsidering the nomination if legitimate, significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, however, I have been unable to find anything. Please share your thoughts on the matter on the deletion page or add sources that satisfy GNG. Thanks! CalebHughes (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Independents football records templates prior to 1956

We have standings templates for independent football teams going back to the inception of college football in 1869; see Category:NCAA Division I FBS independents football records templates. Many of these templates were created by User:UW Dawgs. The problem is that before 1956 the NCAA had no divisions, so the pool of independent teams playing in the one, singular level of college football was very large. Most of the templates prior to 1956 are very incomplete, but Template:1893 college football independents records already has 91 teams listed and is clearly missing many, many independent teams. Is there any practical way of subdividing these independent teams, perhaps by region, to make these templates more manageable? Or should we simply delete them? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if the majority of teams are independent, there's no need for a template. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, what about if a minority of all teams are independent, but there are still more than say 50 of them? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

We could possibly come up with a number that would be the cap (like no template for >30 teams, or something to that effect), or just only keep the templates from a certain year onward (like only keeping independent standings templates from 1956 onward). IMO the second option would be best, what do you think? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a reason to ever have a template in the team articles for independents. If you're in a conference, it makes sense to show the conference standings. But if you're an independent, there are no standings, so why have a template for standings? There are other uses of the templates than in just the team articles (e.g. the annual season pages like 1990 NCAA Division I-A football season) and so it's fine to have a template and use it there - but having 50 unrelated teams listed in a team article makes no sense. If you're looking for a cutoff, I'd say pick a year rather than a number of teams - maybe 1990? (In the early 90s, the BEFC formed, FSU joined the ACC, PSU joined the Big 10+1, and the number of independents dropped to something manageable.) --B (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think 1956, the creation of the University and College Divisions, is a natural and practical cutoff. So would everyone be in favor of deleting all the interdependent templates from 1869 to 1955? We'd leave the WWI and WWII military service templates be. @UW Dawgs: do you want to weigh in here? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cutoff date makes sense, I would be in favor of that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No. No (new) rational is even being offered for whatever reason or links to the prior discussions. Selection of 1893 is particularly misleading as it predates the founding of IAAUS (the NCAA) in 1906. Aggregation of independents is an appropriate and utterly routine treatment. NCAA, ESPN, Sports Reference, S/R 1893, etc. Removal of the templates has the much more problematic consequence of removal from downstream pages, such as 1893 college football season#Conference standings and List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1869–1905). I remain in favor of adding a "collapsed" parameter to the template and/or implementing a default max count render (as was also offered above), allowing the template to be collapsed or semi-collapsed by default such as in team articles and open by default in other transcluded articles (such 19xx CFB season and list of...) -or by whatever rules are deemed reasonable. Additionally, I'm not convinced that every team listed in the NCAA Independents standings is even accurate as somewhat supported here and discussed more generally at Category talk:NCAA Division I FBS independents football records templates. Hence we are repeating, yet again, a discussion of function vs layout where I doubt anyone is against collapsing the templates in some articles or locations when the count exceeds some reasonable threshold or rule. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

UW Dawgs, I selected 1893 only because it's the most developed example. We could try 1915 if you want and see how many independent teams we can find. I'll bet we can find over 100. Sports Reference has to be taken with a grain of salt on topics such as this one, because they are only focused on what they determine to be major programs. I think collapsing just sweeps the problem of unwieldy templates under the rug. What about dividing independents by region? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Until you choose to articulate the (a new?) problem, there is no point to spitballing a solution. Everything you state is well-trod ground. Removing templates creates information gaps in at least 3 article types for literally no reason. Fully or semi-collapsing the templates by some rule or parameter directly resolves your stated issue of “unwieldly templates” and is reader-friendly. Pretending any of this is some new discussion topic remains bizarre. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an old, unresolved problem. Feel free to link to any past discussions. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Whatever issue you’re trying again to resolve, please clearly and specifically articulate it with an outdent. Collapsing is a reader-friendly refinement that I would support. And you’re also welcome to link the prior discussions if they cover whatever you’re trying to tackle here. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. A standings template with 100 or more entries is not very usable. Collapsing it is better for page layout, but once you open it, you still have an unwieldy and user-unfriendly template. As an experiment, I've begun to expand Template:1915 NCAA independents football records. It's up to 103 entries, and I'm sure we haven't covered all bases here. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You have proven my point, rather than articulated an “unwieldly template” issue. There were not 103 teams in the NCAA in 1915. There is a data problem re blind insertion into the existing NCAA Independents templates. NCAA membership by year UW Dawgs (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems we have a very big structural problem if we use this NCAA member by year resource. For example, it states that Notre Dame joined the NCAA in 1924. But all the articles we have for Notre Dame after the inception of the NCAA are rolling up into NCAA categories. Washington apparently joined the NCAA in 1926. But they were already a member of the Pacific Coast Conference, all of which rolls up into NCAA categories. What does a concept like "1919 NCAA football season" mean if it doesn't include 1919 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team? Should we have non-NCAA independents standings templates to capture teams like Notre Dame in 1919? Also, what about seasons like 1893? NCAA membership was a non-thing then. It is useful to have a template with records of 100+ independents on an article like 1893 Alabama Crimson White football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jweiss. I have articulated the rationale for my opposition to these templates in prior discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Fairbanks

Hello, I can somebody please tell me how to find a source with Chuck Fairbanks' date of birth Since an article which I linked to the coach's article from The Oklahoman that lists' his Date of birth as June 10 keeps being reverted on the June 10 page. I am being accused of edit warring when I am actually producing sources with two editors claiming that I didn't. @Cbl62: you're great at digging up sources. Thoughts please?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, his DOB is listed in two of his obituaries source in the Fairbanks article. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I know so why did I have this problem in the first place?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

And now this response!-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a bizarre situation where a couple admins have decided to start enforcing references directly on the date page despite none of the other entries having references themselves. Ostealthy (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Total overreaction there. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Sorry you got tangeled into this mess. I noticed that Fairbank's article didn't have a source for DOB, so I added it. I subsequently added Fairbanks (not the coach and source) to June 10. Then Todd reverted my edit on Fairbanks' page here saying it wasn't verified. Reading the article his DOB was in the article, and I thought June 10, was grouped with that. So, I was under the impression that if Fairbanks' article had a properly sourced DOB (it now does) that it should be okay to add it in June 10. If he just would have told me directly, "Hey let me look at that source, okay there it is, if you would also cite the source ON June 10 page as well (which by the way only Kate Upton is sourced)," instead of some slapped on non-discussion inducing warning like I'm some random IP making stuff up. (And I wasn't) I would have gone along with it. That is what I appreciate about our discussions on WT:CFB, we discuss and try to inform people as to why we edit the way we do, not that it doesn't get heated sometimes, but at least we know where the other persons stands and more importantly Why! I was under the impression they were throwing out both without verifying.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Category for renaming

I have nominated Category:Foster Farms Bowl for renaming to Category:San Francisco Bowl. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible AfD-Marquis Wright

After reading the page, he does not seem to be notable enough to merit an article. It appears he played at Georgetown for and then graduated, no awards or subsequent professional or coaching career. Not entirely sure how to propose an article for deletion so looking for help/advice. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

GPL93, yes, this article looks like a good candidate for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion contains all the instructions for nominating. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters version of CFB schedule template

So I just had my first experience dealing with the unnamed parameters version of the CFB Schedule template, and... wow. That cannot be considered acceptable. The maze of pipes that results from not using named parameters is completely un-intuitive and difficult to work with. In order to add the rank column, I had to literally count out the number of pipes until I got to where the rank column is located, add the rank, and then add another pipe to every single other row in the table, and finally add the |rank=y parameter to the top. If you do anything wrong, you are greeted with no table at all and an error message that elucidates nothing at all about where the problem is. This template was clearly not built with anyone in mind but the select couple of users that designed it.

I do like the new template when it is used with Template:CFB schedule entry and named parameters, because of the ease of adding and removing columns. But when used with unnamed parameters, that benefit is erased and usability-breaking problems are introduced. In my opinion, this mess needs to be deprecated and replaced with the Template:CFB schedule entry in all cases. Ostealthy (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ostealthy, I concur. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I find it very easy to use and understand and have used it to create more than 600 schedule templates in the past eight months. The time needed to create a table with the unnamed parameters is a fraction of what it takes with the named parameters. But the beauty of the current system is we are using the same template, just with dual syntax. Those who prefer named parameters are free to use that. Those who prefer unnamed parameters can use that. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I will say this: The unnamed parameters works most easily for older seasons where there are fewer columns to juggle, e.g, no TV column, no time column, and often no ranking column. E.g, 1934 Loyola Lions football team. The unnamed parameters gets a bit clunkier when there are so many columns. You can choose whichever works best for you. Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this personalized approach where a handful of users use a template that is unwieldy and un-intuitive for everyone else, just because it fits their workflow better. The template needs to be easy to understand for anyone to edit. Team pages are not personal projects. Ostealthy (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That named parameters are clunky, unintuitive, and unnecessarily time consuming is the majority view across Wikipedia. All of the major American sports use unnamed parameters for their schedule charts. See NFL (2016 New York Jets season#Schedue), MLB (2016 New York Yankees season##Game log), NBA (2015–16 Los Angeles Lakers season#Regular season game log), NHL (2015–16 Detroit Red Wings season#Schedule and results). American college football/basketball is alone in continuing to use the unwieldy named parameters approach. It is the named parameters approach that is the unwieldy and un-intuitive outlier. But many here seem wed to the unnamed parameters and, after extensive debate, we settled in January of this year on a dual syntax compromise that allows both approaches within the same framework. Those who prefer named parameter remain free to use that version. Cbl62 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As I was involved in this debate some time ago, I will offer my opinion - from the perspective of creating pages, especially older ones (as Cbl said), I would say that unnamed parameters are better. Less pipes, less columns, less clutter. As for more recent pages, specifically 2018 ones, I prefer named parameters. I know I argued strongly for unnamed parameters in the previous discussion, but after editing and adding info to teams' schedules, I can say that named parameters are much easier to deal with, so much so that I have converted Arkansas' 2018 schedule to named parameters. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters seem to really good for some editors to churn out schedule tables. But they are terrible for the overall maintenance and standardization of the project. We should eliminate the unnamed parameters. The allusions to the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB tables aren't relevant in the way Cbl thinks they are. Those projects are way behind this one in that they are using raw wikitable code to render those schedules. The new schedule templates with named parameters should not take much longer to type out than with unnamed parameters. It should move rather quickly if you copy/paste from one similar article to the next. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You use the term "churn" as though creating hundreds of high quality, well-formatted schedule tables is a bad thing. There remains an enormous number of articles without schedule tables, and a tool that simplifies and speeds up the process of creating these tables is a good thing ... indeed, a very good thing. Further to PCN's comment, I have no problem with limiting the unnamed parameters to older articles. After all, that's where the backlog of articles without schedule tables is. And that's where I have been plugging away for the last eight months, filling in hundreds of tables. As for Jw's opinion that the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB projects are "way behind" this project, the folks at those projects would beg to differ (as would I). Tellingly, there is no backlog of NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB season articles lacking schedule charts. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no backlog of NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB season articles or schedule tables because, in large part, there are way fewer teams and seasons for those topics, and the sources are far more consolidated and accessible. It's a far more ambitious project to cover every major college football team since this late 1800s in this way than it is to cover the teams of those pro leagues. I didn't mean those projects were way behind generally. I meant that were way behind with respect the implementing standardized forms for standardized structures such as these tables. There's no question that you have created an enormous amount of high quality content on Wikipedia, but many of the schedule tables you've created in recent month are not very well-formatted, aside from the issue of unnamed parameters. We've got a bunch like 1947 Detroit Titans football team that aren't using any templates at all. You also appear to be skipping links to opponents when no specific season article exists. In those cases, Template:Cfb link should be utilized. See 1931 San Francisco Grey Fog football team. I'd rather we moved twice as slow and and did things the best possible way. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to get back into attack mode, JW, with you attacking the quality of my contributions. It's really unseemly (and frankly, dickish). I am, in fact, using cfb links, but I do a big group of related articles and then go back and do the cfb links all at once. 1931 San Francisco Grey Fog football team is frankly a pretty solid start and was just started today, for crying out loud. I am in the middle of the west coast Catholic group and have not yet completed it. As for 1947 Detroit Titans football team, that was, as you know, created long before the new templates were rolled out. I have that on my list to fix. Only so much a guy can do in a day. It would be nice to see you actually creating some schedule tables from scratch (haven't seen you doing that in a few years) ... might give you some fresh perspective on the effort involved. As for your suggestion that we do everything "twice as slow", I disagree -- I'd like to see us move "twice as fast" -- we still have a long way to go. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, I've debated over how best to respond here for the last few days. It isn't unseemly or dickish to point out legitimate flaws in the editing of others. That's how we improve things. It wasn't obvious to me that that you intended to circle back and fill in those cfb links. 1920 Tulsa Orange and Black football team has a schedule table that you added more than a month ago, and you haven't yet gone back to fill in the missing opponent links there. It seems that you are indeed including all the opponent links in your most recent edits, e.g. 1948 Santa Clara Broncos football team—glad to see that. The larger issue here remains the unnamed parameter scheme. The whole point of it is to allow more efficient assembly of schedule tables. The problem is that the unnamed parameter scheme doesn't facilitate maintenance and structural change down the road. What if we decide we want to delete an existing field? Or add a new field? Or switch the ordering of fields? Such tasks become far more cumbersome and manual with unnamed parameters. If saving two minutes now costs us five minutes down the road per table, we aren't winning. One glaring problem with the unnamed parameter scheme as it exists now is that the "gamename" (rivalry/bowl) data doesn't have it's own field. It's just added parenthetically inside another field, e.g. 1928 Princeton Tigers football team. This is really unacceptable and needs to be remedied. @Frietjes: can we reengage your expertise here to fix that? Cbl, as for you last few sentences above, I'm intimately aware of the effort involved in making and editing these schedule tables. You may not have noticed, but I have continued in recent months to resolve formatting problems with hundreds of them. I'm currently working my way through the Arkansas Razorbacks seasons. The main thrust of my editing on Wikipedia continues to be coach biography articles, where I have added, among other things, infoboxes and head coaching record tables "from scratch" to thousands of articles. Every one of those infoboxes and head coaching record tables employs named parameters, or the "questionnaire" structure that you find so unpalatable. I can't imagine what additional experience I could have here that would change my view on the value of named parameters. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

JW -- I am on vacation for 2-1/2 weeks with only sporadic access to wifi. In short, though, you are wrong in asserting that unnamed parameters doesn't facilitate maintenance/change; I'd be happy to review this further with you on my return from vacation. Of course, if you have any specific maintenance questions, you could also check with Fritjes. As for the "dickish" comment, what I viewed as dickish was, in the context of a discussion about unnamed parameters, publicly posting minor and unrelated critiques of my editing on this page for review by the entire project. If your goal was truly to be helpful, you could have simply left an inquiry on my personal talk page. You might consider that option in the future. Cbl62 (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, I think we've reached a point where you are reflexively assuming the worst possible—even worse than possible—motive for any of my actions here. Your practice of not including those opponent links is highly relevant to the question of efficient assembly of the tables—the whole justification for the unnamed parameter scheme, in your view. Both of our talk pages are as public as this one, and eyed by similar subscribers. You're grabbing at straws here to find new sources of indignation. You can see that I've already engaged Frietjes below regarding outstanding structural/maintenance issues. Enjoy your vacation. Hopefully we can get some of these issues hashed out by the time you return. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing reflexive about my reactions. When you make constructive points, I often support you whole-heartedly. I wish our interactions were always of this type. However, your comments often lapse into an aggressive and snide tone -- the latest example being your assertion that I am "grasping at straws". Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, you assertion that "grasping at straws" is snide is yet another example of you grasping at straws. You're manufacturing reasons to be offended here. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Add "manufacturing reasons" ("manufacture" defined in this context as "to invent fictitiously; fabricate; concoct") to the list. Can you please disengage? Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Your language policing just won't stop. It started with "churn" and now you're doubling further and further down the rabbit hole. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask again. Please disengage.I would like to enjoy my vacation without further Jweiss-isms. Cbl62 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No one is making you read or respond except you. If you would you like to disengage, disengage yourself. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought when you directed comments at me that you actually wanted me to read them. Silly me. Cbl62 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

the positioning of the parenthetical can be detected by the module and could be autocorrected by the module, otherwise we wouldn't be able to generate Category:Pages using CFB schedule with rivalry after opponent and Category:Pages using CFB schedule with gamename after location automatically. the use of unnamed parameters does not prevent these parenthetical links from being moved automatically by the module. I can implement anything that there is consensus to implement, but I have not seen consensus yet concerning where these parenthetical links should be placed. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is that the gamename should follow location, as is the case for the old legacy templates. We didn't have consensus to move it. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: How does the module detect what's a "rivalry"? Anything in parentheses? Why was it set up up this way instead of giving gamename its own field? Can you correct the 546 instances where gamename is placed in the opponent column? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, Frietjes, I've been experimenting with the conversation process you set up to replace the old templates with the new templates. See my recent edits at 1949 Michigan Wolverines football team. You can see there that after the conversion process there was still some manual cleanup needed to get the poll link in the footer pointing to the correct place. Can we incorporate that cleanup into the conversation process? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

the entries in the rivalry categories have the text "rivalry" as the link text for the link, the entries in the gamename categories are any other parenthetical links. the distinction between the two is fuzzy since some rivalries are named (see, e.g., Old Oaken Bucket vs. Indiana–Purdue rivalry). we have consensus that a rivalry link should be after the opponent name (see Category:Pages using CFB schedule with rivalry after location for articles that do not). making a separate column for the gamename is possible, but would not prevent people from putting it after the opponent's name in either the name or unnamed parameters cases. Frietjes (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss11, perhaps you should tell Coltsfan443 where to put the rivalry link. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

same for PCN02WPS who has been moving them as well. the last discussion that I have seen was in this thread. I'm not going to move them if they are just going to be moved back. of course, if we have the module move them, it would force the issue. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, the consensus is that the gamename data should live in the site column, as has been the case in the legacy templates. We could not establish a consensus to overturn the legacy placement and move gamename to the opponent column. PCN02WPS and Coltsfan443 both appear to be in sync with that. I'm confused by what you mean here, particularly your use of the word "categories": "the entries in the rivalry categories have the text "rivalry" as the link text for the link, the entries in the gamename categories are any other parenthetical links". In the legacy templates (Template:CFB Schedule Entry and in new template with name parameters Template:CFB schedule entry, there is simply a gamename field that captures all named games, which include rivalries, bowls, playoffs, and other named games. And not that rivalries contain the world "rivalry". Is something different happening in the unnamed parameter scheme of Template:CFB schedule? Are rivalries being cleaved off from other named games? Can you clarify why gamename wasn't given its own dedicated field? Seems like this has opened a can on worms we never could have had if we'd simply stuck to named parameters. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, also, when you have a chance, can you address my question above about tweaking the legacy-template-to-new-template conversation process? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(1) please read this thread which has a majority saying that the rivalry link goes in the opponent column. there is nothing stopping people from putting it in either location, even when using named parameters. (2) your continued refrain of "why gamename wasn't given its own dedicated field?" is getting tiring, as I have already answered this question in the linked thread. I was originally asked to make a module similar to {{sports rivalry series table}}, which is what I did. (3) I may be able to find some time to fix problems with the table conversion module over the next several days, but I may be busy with other things. Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, there was another discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21#2018 season articles in which it become clear that consensus to move gamename was murky. In light of a lack of consensus to move, I think we have to revert to the legacy placement, no? Whatever the case, it all needs to in one place or the other. What we currently have is a mess with mixed placement. That needs to be fixed. Is there anything systematic you can do to remedy this or is a manual cleanup the only fix?

the module could automatically move them to a particular location, or a bot could move them. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In the old legacy templates, we never ever had a problem with people putting gamename in wrong place. The "nothing stopping people" argument is a non argument. I could put the time in the date field if I wanted to misuse the template. I'm sorry, I still do not see a good explanation why it was decided that gamename would not received it's own dedicated field. What is the advantage of that? Can you please explain that here and now? I'm not seeing an explanation in any of the old threads.

uses of the old template system had the rivalry link after the opponent in may cases, and after the location in many cases. the WYSIWYG approach was to allow flexibility and lack of astonishment with the results. if you continue to hammer me on past design decisions instead of focusing on what should be done in the future, I will stop following this thread. I really have no time or energy for it. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you please address my question above about tweaking the legacy-template-to-new-template conversation process? That needs to be addressed before we can make the bot request for the automatic conversion. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

you didn't read my response (point 3) directly above. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes, I indeed missed your response regarding the conversation process ("I may be able to find some time to fix problems with the table conversion module over the next several days, but I may be busy with other things."). Sorry about that. We need to address this sooner than later, as it is holding up the long-overdue conversion and deprecation of the old templates. If you can't get to this soon, is there another qualified editor you can recommend who might be able to look into that?

"uses of the old template system had the rivalry link after the opponent in may cases". Really? I've never seen this and I've edited thousands of these tables. Can you show me an example?

"WYSIWYG" doesn't seem to be a very good justification here. If "lack of astonishment" was the intent, well it's not working, because it's produced astonishing inconsistency. All of my questions and efforts here are intended to focus of what we can do now and in the future. I'm trying to understand exactly what was done and why to this point and so that we can rectify the problems we have right now.

"The module could automatically move them to a particular location". Can you execute this and move the links to the site field? If not, is there another qualified editor you can recommend who might be able to look into that?

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

point spread sillyness

an editor 73.197.56.240 changed many pages from Elapsed time to point spread......any help reverting would be appreciated.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocemy Saint Juste

A new AfD raises the question as to whether (i) a college football player must satisfy WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON; or (ii) it is sufficient that the player pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. If you have views on this, one way or the other, please feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocemy Saint Juste. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Patriot Bowl champion seasons

We don't typically have categories for regular season games right?- seeCategory:Patriot Bowl champion seasons.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Also Category:Pineapple Bowl champion seasons-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Patriot Bowl champion seasons should be deleted. Its parent category, Category:Patriot Bowl, would then become superfluous and should be deleted as well. The Pineapple Bowl was a postseason bowl game, so I think that category is okay. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

football Template for discussion

There is a merge discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 17#Template:United Football League (2009) team that editors may be interested in discussing. FYI it regards merging Template:Infobox NFL team and others into Template:Infobox American football team. At the rate its going, "I think we need to identify the ultimate 'parent' template and see if there are any other templates that fit with this merge." it could impact Template:Infobox NCAA football school down the line. Thoughts are appreciated.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Automatic semi-protection of rivalry articles

This idea probably flies in the face of Wikipolicy, but I'll throw it out there... There was some silly partisan IP vandalism on the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry article last week, so I requested semi-protection, and an admin semi-locked it down from Friday until Monday. Rivalry games usually bring out a flurry of IP vandals putting in crazy scores and who "owns" who - you've all seen it. But because of the protection, there was none of that on the UF-UT article. A couple of regular editors (including myself) updated the record and scores, etc., with no repeated reverting necessary. Perhaps it might be a good idea to semi-protect rivalry articles during the weekend of the game as a matter of course? IP users would be free to contribute at other times, but the overwhelming majority of anonymous edits on game weeks are straight up vandalism. Just a thought. Zeng8r (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've suggested this in the past in a few places and was turned down each time. Not sure about policy, but it seems most admins are against the notion of preemptive protection. What say you Bagumba? Lizard (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The policy against it is WP:NO-PREEMPT. If I was running my own site, it'd be common sense and predictable for some annual events like the Super Bowl. But Wikipedia leadership is crowd sourced, so you'd have to come up with something agreeable for people wary of rogue admins silencing editors.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a way to shorthand the issue at RPP, like "recurring event vandalism", so that a disinterested editor doesn't have to explain the whole thing laboriously, and the admin doesn't have to think about it - just, ah, okay, it's that time of year again, semi-protected for a week. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:VPP might be the best place to propose. Be prepared to give some background for non-sports editors (though it probably applies in other areas).—Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of American football positions, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Two possible AfD's-The St. Brown brothers

I noticed that there are pages for both of Equanimeous St. Brown's brothers, Osiris and Amon-Ra St. Brown both of whom are currently freshman at their respective universities. While both may very well have successful college careers, these articles may be a case of WP:TOOSOON given they have no serious college honors nor a professional career yet. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

National championships recognized with bolding in team navboxes

User:UW Dawgs and I have a disagreement at Template:USC Trojans football navbox which potentially affect many others navboxes of the kind. User:Corkythehornetfan has become involved in the dispute as as well. UW Dawgs made a recent edit to the USC navbox in which he bolded every USC season mentioned at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, which includes seasons like 2007 USC Trojans football team, where USC won a obscure national title from the Dunkel System. I'm quite confident that we reached a consensus here some years ago to only recognize "major" national titles in these team navboxes. The NCAA record books recognize four "major" selectors for national titles since 1950: the AP Poll, the Coaches Poll, the Football Writers Association of America (FWAA), and the National Football Foundation (NFF). I believe our consensuses was also to recognize only national titles that the school in question claims for years prior to 1950. It's probably a good time to reaffirm or modify this consensus and, perhaps, expand its scope to formalize how we recognize national titles in other standardized structures like infoboxes and record tables. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Bolding seasons like 2007 for USC is clearly ridiculous. I think what makes the most sense for the team navboxes is bolding the titles that are claimed by the school. Teams generally don't make claims that are too far fetched, whereas the NCAA's list of every single "major selector" title is riddled with absurdities that no one claims. Only problem is that sometimes it's a little tough to tell what titles a school "claims" since that's a bit of a nebulous term. For example, I believe Washington's media guide includes "national champions" sections on 1984 and 1990, but their stadium only has a national championship banner for 1991. Ostealthy (talk)

I think seasons like Washington's in 1984 and 1990 fall into the bucket of obscure national titles the most everyone doesn't generally recognize. For years since 1950, I recommend we continue to limit it to just national titles from those four "major" selectors. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is somewhat misstated. The NCAA-coined term is "major selector" and we use them extensively within this type of article content, including via infoboxes callouts. The NCAA currently identifies about 12 active "major selectors" by my count, inclusive of Dunkel whose NCAA designation dates to its 1929 origin. Many current and prior major selectors predate the polling era. Recentism bias aside, you might be trying to use the term "consensus national champions." That is another of the NCAA's coined terms. There are currently 3 and that associated methodology dates to 1950. As I believe you are aware, there is an active discussion on what Dunkel claims in 2007 which makes the example problematic. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

MOS discussion: On the related subject of bolding navbox links in general (not CFB specific), I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Bolding_navbox_links.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)