Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Jun2008

Use of bolding in stadium templates

Currently, the templates at Category:American college football venue navigational boxes (both the "by state" and "by conference" sets) use the following formatting: Bold for the stadium name followed by the common name of the university non-bolded in parenthesis.

Here is an example:

An issue has been raised at {{Michigan college football venues}} (see the edit history) that this formatting interferes with the auto-bolding of the current article and it has been suggested that it be changed to this:

I, personally, have no preference, but do feel that all 77 (48 in the "by state" subcat and 29 in the "by conference" subcat) of the templates should match and not have just the Michigan one be formatted differently. So, I bring the topic here for discussion. Thoughts would be appreciated. --Gwguffey (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(follow-up comment) The bolding format is currently the standard used in the college basketball templates in Category:College basketball venue templates and the three college baseball facility templates in Category:American college sports venue navigational boxes. --Gwguffey (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In it interest of full-disclosure, it was I who suggested/made the change to remove the bolding. Like Gwguffey said, the bolding interferes with the auto-bolding that occurs when viewing the template via one of the articles in the template. I also feel that it isn't necessary to have each of the templates have the exact same format. I'm of the belief that consistency is important within an article, but is not as important across articles. Enforcing strict consistency reduces the ability for Wikipedia articles to improve if when one article is updated, not all articles are updated. But I suppose this discussion is more of a Wikipedia-wide discussion than to college football templates. – X96lee15 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, and there is a somewhat larger issue: That being, do we want to have one page or group (in this case, Michigan fans) to dictate protocol for all of the college football project. Hmmm... Can't say I'm super-excited about the precedent. That said, I'm glad that this conversation is taking place! Suggestions are always welcome!

Back to the issue at hand, personally I like the bolding in the template. Reason? I like it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not an issue at all. It's not a "group of fans", it's one person trying to improve a single template. Also, it should have absolutely zero bearing on a discussion who I am a "fan" of. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you are a "Michigan fan" but someone most likely is, and that someone or group of someones has put "stuff" on the "Michigan" templates/pages which appear to be interfering with this project in general. That's all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also like the templates as they are now with bolded stadium names. I think it's easier on the eyes and quicker for navigation. Although I'd be fine with either. Really nice work on all of those too Gwguffey! Geologik (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Geologik. It was a fun project to research. Now, let me see if I can quantify your statement about being "quicker on the eyes and easier for navigation". I am guessing that what you are drawn to is that with the bolding you are drawn to the stadium names while the school names are secondary. Thus, you can scan the stadium names and tune out the university names. Without the bolding, both of those pieces of information are given equal visual weight. So, in a perfect world, there would be a way to have neither the equal weighting nor the interference with the current article auto bold. Here's an experiment using <small> for the university names:

I'm not sure there is enough difference between the font sizes, but I'm used to the bolding, so my perception may be skewed. Anyway, it is something to discuss. (side note: this discussion would probably not be occurring if all the of stadiums had articles, as there would be no black text to get mixed up with the auto-bold) --Gwguffey (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I've just started Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable Sources, an essay on use of reliable sources within our project. Everyone please take a look and jump in with comments or adding to it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem on how you listed http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com. I really do not have a problem with it being a fan site, because he list his references. [1] My problem is it is an incomplete data base. Maybe in 5 to 10 years when the data base is finished, I would consider it a reliable source. It is usually very accurate on the record a coach had at school but it is not reliable for career record of a coach. Several very notable coaches have coached at schools that have not been entered into the data base. Several examples are:

Edwin Sweetland – no mention of his time at Hamilton or Alfred [2]

Sol Metzger– no mention of his time at Washington and Jefferson [3]

John W. Heisman – no mention of his time at Oberlin [4]

Hal Mumme - no mention of his time Iowa Wesleyan or Valdosta State [5]

Stu Holcomb - no mention of his time Findlay, Muskingum or Washington and Jefferson [6]

Andrew Kerr - no mention of his time at Washington & Jefferson and Lebanon Valley. [7]

Amos Alonzo Stagg- no mention of his time at Springfield [8]

If you are going to list on that page you should definitely state that the site is a work in progress and to verify career record with other sources. 09er (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you're right! I won't get to it right away, feel free to make an edit yourself, if you like!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1571 articles assigned to this project, or 10.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Do it! Can you dump it to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/To do full list??--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I remove an article from that list? I've updated 2005 Sugar Bowl, but can't get rid of it at the top of the list. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines Featured lists

I have a question about three featured list: Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders. Does anyone else think the intro is too Michigan Wolverines football centered? I believe it should be more about each list. It even says in the FLC that the user pretty much copied each intro verbatim. I hate to rag on a CFB featured content, but I am curious to everyone else thought.

Well, the topic is about Michigan, after all. It's not how I would've written it, but I understand that folks write differently. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FBS national championship article

NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship is obviously in need of a major rewrite and renaming. This has been discussed for months and over the winter I put together a massive list using the best resources available. I took a wikibreak following the creation of that list, and upon my return noticed that the article has gone from bad to worse to downright terrible, full of POV and patched-up sections. The "By year" list alone has been redone dozens of times, and the current list is unacceptably sparse. I originally uploaded my new list to my user page and recently took the liberty of creating a whole new quasi-article for the subject, on my user page, complete with a lot of good information and two new "Most national championships" lists. I would not expect this new article to replace the current one, but it is a great start and I hope we can get some discussion going about how to salvage one of college football's most important yet most deteriorating articles. Iowa13 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One more note: as, right now, it doesn't seem as if any change will come about on this issue, I would advise anyone looking for REAL and GOOD information about the national championship to skip the bullcrap and go here. Peace Iowa13 (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)