Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CFB)

Shortcut

Background coloring in head coaching record tables

[edit]

Dissident93 made some edits to Template:CFB Yearly Record Subhead and Template:CFB Yearly Record End yesterday that removed gray background coloring for heading and total rows in the college football head coaching record tables. This has something do with rendering in light-on-dark color scheme ("dark mode") it seems. The gray background color is still present in the analogous templates for college basketball head coaching record tables. Doggie Julian#Head coaching record is a good example where you can compare the two. I certainly think the tables look better with the gray shading. Dissident93, can you explain what the problem was with the "dark mode"? Is there a way we could keep the gray shading by default, but change things as needed for dark mode? I know you also have some more general concerns about the layout of these tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was going crazy, my eyes are not fond of these all-white record tables. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better with the gray. It's a little easier to distinguish between tenures when the whole table isn't white. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dissident93, can you explain the dark mode issue here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is recommended to not use inline colors within articles and templates for better dark mode compatibility unless necessary, which apparently this was. I've re-added the color with a !important tag so they should look normal again in light (default) mode. Can somebody confirm? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dissdent93, thanks for the explanation and making the change. Yes, things look normal (or as they were before) in light (default) mode. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Skip Holtz

[edit]

Skip Holtz has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decade articles for 2020s

[edit]

My work on GLIAC decade articles for the 2010s is making good progress. E.g., Ferris State, Grand Valley, Hillsdale, Michigan Tech, Northern Michigan, Northwood, Saginaw Valley, Wayne State. I would like to start such articles for the 2020s but first want to see if can form a consensus for those. Here are a couple options:

Both options are fine with me, though I have a slight preference for Option 1, so as to avoid "crystal ball" or "too soon" criticisms. I'd like to see if we can reach consensus before creating any such articles. Cbl62 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best option is a third one, already in use at Dakota State Trojans football, 2020–present. With "present", the article doesn't have to be renamed every year. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That works for me. We would then move such articles to a "2020–2029" nomenclature in December 1928. "Siri, set a reminder for December 2028." (o Cbl62 (talk)
Yes, once the decade is over, or we get to 2029, we rename the article accordingly. Until then, Siri! Jweiss11 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the "present" option; spares a great deal of unnecessary editorial work down the road. Where possible, it's better to build things to last for the long haul rather than create a condition which requires regular maintenance. Left guide (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP-hopping vandal

[edit]

I am notifying editors of this project that an IP-hopping vandal 2601:8C:982:1A40:C572:AC5D:84C9:14CC/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disrupting various college football team pages for about 2 days (also disrupted NHL-related pages, which I primarily edit so I ended up here after inspecting the IPs). It changes the number of national/conference/division titles in infoboxes. I am not a participant of college football-related pages so I cannot confirm the changes to conference and division titles, but I can clearly see the number of national titles by team at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship claims. I have already reverted the changes 3–4 times, but the IP hopper is coming back and changing back to incorrect numbers. – sbaio 12:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for award winners

[edit]

Is there a good sources out there for award winners? The award winners section of Missouri Tigers football was tagged as having no citations (which is correct, there aren't any citations there) and I was just wondering if this project has a good source for this stuff. If not, I'll go through and find sources, just wanted to check here first. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 13:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esb5415: Did you try checking the reference sections of the linked award articles themselves? Some of them appear to have several sources (i.e. John Mackey Award#References and Burlsworth Trophy#References). Left guide (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for deletion: 1969 All-South Independent football team

[edit]

The deletion rationale given was:

  • "Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG."

We have a series of 27 articles about All-South Independent football teams:

All of these articles are similar to the 1969 All-South Independent football team article and each cites a newspaper article.

Also see this 2024 conversation about these articles:

We should probably either keep this article or delete all 27. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Pop Warner

[edit]

Pop Warner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin–Stout Blue Devils

[edit]

The following deletion discussion may be of interest to project participants. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notification

[edit]

There's a split proposal/discussion at WT:NFL#Split proposal for Field goal that involves some college football material. You are invited to join there. Left guide (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Award categories

[edit]

Is there any opposition to creating more award categories like Category:Fred Biletnikoff Award winners and Category:Chuck Bednarik Award winners to match Category:Heisman Trophy winners and Category:Walter Payton Award winners? I would usually just WP:DOIT but they involve a large number of pages. My rational is that if a standalone article and navbox already exist for them, then a matching category should as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these awards really as defining as the Heisman Trophy? Looks like we have the following categories for college football player award winners:
I'm certainly in favor of keeping the Heisman winner cat. There others run the gamut from pretty obscure and probably not defining, like Jon Cornish, to kinda close to the Heisman, maybe, like Maxwell and Walter Camp. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same defining logic should also apply to their associated navboxes, which nobody has stated any opposition to. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Display of team captains in infobox

[edit]

Not sure whether there was discussion of this before implementation, but there's been a change this year of putting each captain's name on a separate line in the season article infobox. The impact is to make our already-long infoboxes even longer. The 1972 Iowa Hawkeyes football team infobox is an example of this. With two or three captains, the information previously displayed on one or two lines (depending on screen width), but now it spreads the same information over three separate lines. I'm not seeing the benefit of this change. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a bit much sometimes (see 2019 Anna Maria Amcats football team with seven) Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, as part of a massive effort to cleanup and standardize these infoboxes and lots of other stuff, in recent months I've been cleaning up those captains fields. The template documentation always indicated that separate fields should be used for each captain. In practice, sometimes that was followed, but in many other cases a single field was used for multiple captains with break tags or commas separating each captain. A negative of the later practice was that a field containing multiple captains would carry the singular label "captain" instead of the more appropriate plural label "captains". That same issue applies to MVP fields. To make this all work better, we've expanded the number of captain fields from 6 to 8 and MVP fields from 2 to 4. Much of this was discussed at Template talk:Infobox college sports team season. There are still some rare cases of more than 8 captains (e.g. 2003 Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football team) and more than 4 MVPs (e.g. 1985 Iowa Hawkeyes football team). If we think it's better to have the lists of captains/mvps on a single wrapping line separated by commas instead of one player per line, we could easily tweak the code of the template. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see captains as being significant enough to meet MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Note it on the roster, or temporarily in a section listing if a roster doesn't exist yet. —Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should generally design infoboxes to reflect the weight of sources. Are captains a key part of season summaries in reliable sources? If so, include them; if not, leave them out. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came upon this issue while building out the Iowa season articles. 1979 Iowa Hawkeyes football team is an even more egregious example: With five team captains, the list takes up a disproportionate space in the infobox.
As for Bagumba's suggestion to delete the field: Team captains were much more significant historically than they are today, and I think the field should be maintained at least for older season articles. The significance of the captain has definitely diminished as teams went from having "a captain" to having two, three, five, or even seven co-captains. I'm open to deleting the captains display for modern teams -- though I'm not sure what the cutoff date would be. Or maybe we just adopt a rule that captain names aren't displayed when there are multiple captains. I'm open to suggestions, but displaying four, five, or even seven captains in the infobox is undue.
As for the display format, I definitely favor going back to how it's previously been done by wrapping the captains on a single line. And FWIW, template talk pages don't generally get followed. For significant changes like this, it's probably best to discuss at the main college football talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for Bagumba's suggestion to delete the field Is the suggestion being made to delete the captain field from the infobox template itself? If so, that would be a bad idea. The template is shared with many other sports, in some of which captains seem to be more important, like hockey and soccer. Such a change based only on football issues would also be a sort of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If there are design considerations in CFB that drastically differ from how it's often used in other sports, it may be best to split off football into its own infobox template. Left guide (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't phrase that well. The issue is not removing the field from the overall teamplate. The issue is making a decision as a college football project as to whether to fill in the field when a team has three, four, five, six, or seven captains. At the extreme, when you have so many captains (maybe three or four on the field at the same time!), the concept of a "captain" loses its significance, and we can decide as a project that this is not the sort of core information that belongs in an infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an example of something that's not broken and doesn't need to be fixed. From the beginning of college football in the late 1800s through the mid 1900s it was most typical to have one team captain, maybe two. In the early days, rosters were much smaller and players played both ways. The same set of 11 guys played on offense, defense, and special teams, with maybe a few permanent substitutions late the game, similar to how soccer or baseball still works now. Since the two-platoon system and free, at-will substitution and re-entry was adopted in the 1940s, college football rosters have continued to get larger and larger, and players more and more specialized. And the number for team captains has often grown in like kind, first to 2 and 3 in the latter decades of the 1900s and then often to a handful, like 4 to 8. Take the 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team for example, which had 6 team captains: 3 on offense and 3 on defense. Captains have leadership roles not only on the game field itself, but in practice and the "lockeroom" development of the team. I think this remains core information about a team that belongs in the infobox. With respect to Cbl's suggestion, wherever possible we should avoid subjective cutoffs of articulated sets of coherent and objective data points. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the role of a team captain has changed dramatically over the course of college football history. In the early days, the captain had major responsbility in running the team. Today, it is often just an "honorary" title bestowed on a group of senior players. It is no longer core information worthy of infobox treatment. If it is to be included, it should absolutely not receive separate lines for each "captain" -- doing that makes it grossly undue in a modern team infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notification (2)

[edit]

There's a discussion at the lower portion of WT:NFL#TV / streaming networks in schedule tables about possibly removing TV-related parameters from {{Americanfootballbox}}, which would affect college football articles that the template is used on. You are invited to join there. Left guide (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Colt McCoy

[edit]

Colt McCoy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football&oldid=1294105622"