Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns

Gang, there is a requested move discussion regarding the name of the school. Please visit this link for the discussion. It is recommended that you read the discussion above it as well. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 14:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Gotta love those ULaLa. WP:SPAs.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone think there's enough to warrant a sock puppet investigation there? Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ejgreen77: Between the numerous IPs, Pncomeaux, Airbill, and others... I've been thinking that for a while now... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ejgreen77: Go for it.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Newly-created templates nominated for deletion

I've nominated four newly-created templates related to this project for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

AfD: 1982 Tobacco Bowl

I have nominated 1982 Tobacco Bowl for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

College Football Hall of Fame Class of Navboxes

Hey all, I am actually very surprised that we don't have them, is there a reason as to why?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think they would just be clutter. The fact that individuals were inducted into the CFHOF in the same year isn't a very significant commonality. Frankly, I'm also not a fan of such "class" navboxes for Baseball HOF or Pro Football HOF either. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree at all, it just struck me as odd that nobody would have thought of that. Since we are on the topic of clutter why do we have this navbox, when we already have one for the BCS and for the CFP.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd vote that these are clutter. Sports projects already get grief for having too many infoboxes. Rikster2 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Cbl62 flouting consensus on schedule tables

User:Cbl62 thinks that he doesn't have to use the standard templates (Template:CFB Schedule Start and it's siblings) for building schedule tables on season articles because he doesn't like them or they're to difficult for him manage; see 1947 Detroit Titans football team for an example. This is a blatant flouting of core, long-standard project consensus. It bodes to confuse and misdirect less witting and newbie editors and increases the risk of style forking. Can some others weigh in here? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11 engaged in mass removal of sourced and verifiable information

User:Jweiss11 has been engaged in what I consider to be highly unproductive editing tonight in removing sourced and verifiable schedule charts from every season article on the Detroit Titans football program (e.g., this diff). As I've told him, I find the "CFB Schedule Entry" to be time-consuming (and confusing) in the extreme. This may be unique to me, but I simply don't have the patience to do the tedious and confusing manual data entry required by the existing format. As a result, over the years, I've created many season articles, hoping that someone else might fill in the schedule tables. That hasn't happened, so I began filling in the tables this month, beginning with the Detroit Titans. The format I'm using attempts to precisely mimic the end product of the "CFB Schedule Entry" format but does so in a way that my impatient mind can manage. I am not advocating an overhaul of the system. I am simply trying to create Schedule charts on articles that have gone without them, in some cases for years. If Jweiss11 or someone else wants to convert my charts into "CFB Schedule Entry" format, I have no problem with that. Go for it. But what I do object to is Jweiss11 blanking all of the charts I created. This IMO could be properly characterized as vandalism. The bottom line is that we have an editor (me) willing to backfill on articles lacking schedule tables. I believe these sourced charts (as seen at 1947 Detroit Titans football team) are better than the long-standing status quo of no schedule information. Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cbl, if an element of Wikipedia editing is too difficult for you to do properly, then you should not do it. Your false charges of vandalism are also noted. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Jw, I am simply trying to improve our season articles to the best of my ability. It is beyond me that you believe that the 1947 Detroit Titans football team is "better" without the schedule table I added (with inline citations for each game). If you prefer the "CFB Schedule Entry" format, you are free to convert to that format ... with no objection from me. What you are not free to do is go on a campaign of mass removal of sourced and verifiable content. Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your insistence on flouting a basic point of consensus on style is simply disruptive editing. Bad style replicates like cancer and you are engendering the spread. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not "flouting" anything. As we discussed on your Talk page, I'm simply doing the best I can to improve season articles. Bear in mind that variant schedule charts are numerous. See, e.g., 1951 Louisville, 1951 Wash. St., 1951 Texas Tech, 1951 Clemson, 1951 Duke, etc. (A couple of of these are really awful, the last couple are pretty good.) But if you want to "improve" things, the solution is to actually "improve" them. Removing accurate (and in the Detroit cases, fully sourced) content is not an "improvement". Rather, such mass removal of fully-sourced content is what really constitutes disruptive editing. Cbl62 (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Blanking sourced content, even if motivated by some template fetish, is vandalism. This isn't even a close call, Jw. I would sleep on it and hopefully you will cool off. Also hopefully some other CFB people will talk some sense into you. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, I think the overall contributions from both of you is more important than this single issue. I'd like to think you can work out a compromise between the two of you. My feeling is correct schedule information is better than none at all. Is there anything that can be done to make the templates easier to understand for Cbl62? Can Cbl62 use the template, but leave confusing parts blank? Can someone just convert the non-template tables later, as Cbl62 has no problem with that either. All of those options sound better than removing correct information that is in a clean format, even if the table is non-standard.--Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with your opening comment. We discussed on Jweiss' talk page, but he asserted that his view "should be simply accepted and mark the end of this discussion" and then blanked the tables I had created. As for your compromise suggestions/questions:

• Making the template easier to understand and less time consuming would be great. The template is very cumbersome and has been a real impediment to building out the schedule charts despite nearly 10 years of this project's efforts. As Mnnlaxer noted at Jweiss' talk page: "Those tables are a pain in the ass for me, and I know more about templates than the average editor." The simple table format I'm using has each game on a single line and is way easier to complete. As points of reference, the NFL, MLB, and NHL projects all use simple charts, more akin to what I am doing, for their schedule/game log charts. See NFL, MLB, and NHL versions.
• As for completing some but not all parts of the template, I don't think that moves the ball forward and, even if it did, would just result in messy, incomplete charts.
• As to your third question, the format I'm using precisely mimics the output of the "official" CFB schedule template. It allows us to improve season articles and still permits a template-driven editor to swap out the formatting should they choose to do so. That's a compromise that makes sense to me. Cbl62 (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - A schedule is better than no schedule at all. If Cbl62 is willing to insert the schedules not using the template because it's "time consuming", then let him. If Jweiss and/or others don't like it, then they can WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and add the correct template... at least Cbl62 is willing to add the schedules. Should we use the template, yes, but I agree it needs needs updated and simplified. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I retract stating it was vandalism. Sorry, Jweiss11. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Template usability

Following are the current parameters for {{CFB Schedule Entry}}.
{{CFB Schedule Entry | date = | time = | w/l = | nonconf = | homecoming = | away = | neutral = | rank = | opponent = | opprank = | site_stadium = | site_cityst = | gamename = | tv = | score = | overtime = | attend = }}
To help us better understand the issues, what are some of the problem people are experiencing? Confusing parameter names, unclear what should be entered, etc?--Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

My biggest issue with it has always been how many parameters you have to fill in whether you need them or not. If you're writing about an older season, you may not have the game time, attendance, or TV information (if it was even televised) readily available, and if the team wasn't ranked that year you may not need the rank column either. Normally this would mean that you can just leave out those columns entirely, but in the CFB schedule templates, you have to enter "time=no" (and so on for the other parameters) in both the header and every single entry. This is tedious if you aren't copying and pasting entries, and even if you are it's a lot of noise that you don't really need. TheCatalyst31 ^{ReactionoCreation} 13:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with TheCatalyst. For a 10-game season, it's like having to fill out a lengthy questionnaire 10 times and having to remember code for many of the entries. It's just SO much easier to do it the way MLB, NFL, and NHL do it -- where you simply list the information for a game on a single line. Here's a comparison of how a single game is dealt with using the two versions:

* CFB Schedule Entry (a 15-part questionnaire for each game): "{{CFB Schedule Entry}}.

{{CFB Schedule Entry | date = September 26 | time = unknown (does the coding require me to leave blank?) | w/l = w | nonconf = no because the team was "independent" (leave blank?) | homecoming = unsure (leave blank?) | away = no (do I write "no" or just "n") | neutral = no (do I just leave blank?) | rank = none (do I just leave blank?) | opponent = [[1947 Oklahoma Sooners football team|Oklahoma]] | opprank = none (do I just leave blank?) | site_stadium = [[University of Detroit Stadium]] | site_cityst = [[Detroit]] | gamename = none (do I just leave blank?) | tv = none (do I just leave blank?) | score = 20-24 | overtime = no (do I just leave blank?) | attend = 24,375 }}

* My way (a simple line of understandable text): "|September 26||Oklahoma||University of Detroit Stadium, Detroit||L 20-24||24,375"

The amount of time required to fill out multiple questionnaires (and figure out the correct coding) to complete the "official" template is unnecessary and deters schedule creation. Cbl62 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

All column use choices should only be in the header template, no repeating in entry rows should be needed. I would also take out the 95% font size and the dot between stadium and city. A comma would be fine. While on the subject, for {{CFB Yearly Record Start}}, entering "bowl = no" does not work. The label goes away, but there are still blank cells in the column. Also, for independents, if you don't include "conference = " (yes, blank), template code shows up in the table. And like CFB Schedule Entry, you need to include "| ranking = no" and "| ranking2 = no" on every entry if you're not using the ranking columns. I would hope Jweiss11 could admit that the template code could be vastly improved, which could potentially solve the issue. @PSUMark2006: or @Nmajdan: can you help out? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: Can you provide examples of articles for these errors in the template? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I just altered Cub Buck to show the "bowl = no" in the Start and took out "conference = " in 1917. Please undo the edit after you've had a look. But most problems with these two templates are coded correctly, they are just very cumbersome. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, see this edit as that will fix the "bowl" problem. Should we make the "conference record" field optional so it won't display {{{conference}}}? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Then the "bowl = no" issue is just like the rest of the repetitive "no"s you have to use, plus it wasn't mentioned in the documentation. Yes, "| conference = | confstanding = | bowlname = | bowloutcome = | bcsbowl = | ranking = | ranking2 = " should all be optional and default to blank cells if the column is being used or not creating cells in that column if the header has a "no" for that column. The same optional and defaults for the season entries should be made. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I realized that after I typed it... was getting ready to suggest conference as optional but you beat me to it! It would save us time this way. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 02:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Okay, guys, here are my thoughts on this. Jweiss is not wrong in saying that we should be encouraging use of the official CFB schedule template. Cbl62 is not wrong in saying that the template as it exists right now is a bit clunky in certain spots. So, to me the solution is, let's work to improve the template to make it more user-friendly. I fully agree with what has been brought out above about the repetitive "no" parameters, and I think this is something the should be fixable. For example, if you enter "rank=no" into the header of the template, you shouldn't have to re-enter "rank=no" on every single individual game entry - that should be done automatically. And, the same thing goes for other parameters like time, TV, attendance, etc. The good news is that it seems to me like this is something that should be fixable, we just need someone with the technical skills like User:Frietjes to take a look at the template coding. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as far the usability, these templates were created years ago with a very modern BCS-centrist mindset, so those fields like time, rank, and TV are turned on by default. I'm not against flipping things around so that they are turned off by default. This would require some editing to the templates coupled with a bot sweep to clean up all the transclusions. Jweiss11 (talk)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Here are my general thoughts. I agree that are some small sub-optimal usability issues with the templates in question and I will support any effort to resolve or improve them.

However, the templates as they exist, are not that difficult to use properly with some care and attention to detail. If one chooses to build tables for a series of season articles for a particular team, once you get the first the table set up, you can accomplish much of the subsequent work by coping the code from one season to the next and making tweaks as needed--scores, dates, and opponent links will clearly change from one year to the next. This approach can be even more efficient given that teams will often play opponents in a similar order from one season to the next and have game locations toggle on a two-year cycle for regular/conference opponents. If anyone here wants to tackle the task of adding schedules tables for a series of articles missing them, I'm happy to help. Perhaps, attempt a table for the first of the series, and I can check it and make corrections as needed to facilitate the rest of the run.

What is absolutely inappropriate is the approach that Cbl has taken. He decided that templates were too much of a pain for him, so he just said, "fuck em". These templates have already been transcluded on over 11,000 articles. They represent a core element of consensus and cooperative alignment for this project and its sister college sports projects. Noting that some messy non-compliant outliers, which don't use these templates, exist is an intellectually dishonest excuse. Cbl's example of 1951 Clemson Tigers football team was chopped about two years ago from one of those sloppy decade articles, Clemson Tigers football, 1950-59, that we've since phased out. Season articles for the Alabama or Michigan represent some of our best-in-class examples. Those should be used as models.

Jweiss11 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

JW -- The problems with usability are not "small" or remediable with a little tweaking. There's a fundamental problem with a cumbersome structure that requires repetition and completion of a questionnaire for each and every game entry. None of the other major sports do it that way, and my suggestion is to convert to a simple chart along the lines of those used by the NFL (here), MLB (here), NHL (here), or NBA (here). Any of these is preferable to the bureaucratic and burdensome structure we currently use. As for my creation of charts, it's not a "f--- em", not to you or anyone. It's an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I hoped that someone might fill in schedule tables and waited, in some cases, 3-1/2 years, for that to happen (e.g., 1922 Harvard Crimson football team and 1921 Princeton Tigers football team were created in August 2014!). Unfortunately, nobody did it, so I'm now filling them in. And I'm not doing it in a bizarre or "intellectually dishonest" manner. I'm doing it in a responsible and sound manner that visually replicates the "official" version (with the exception of a new "Source" column recommended by Mnnlaxer). If you or anyone wants to modify formatting, that time could be better spent building charts on other articles that don't already have schedule charts, but you are free to do so (my only objection would be to removal of content). Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

CBl, your approach is a non-solution. Do you want to TfD the templates in question and replace all 11,000 transclusions with manual tables? Otherwise, what you are doing is engendering a style fork. The legitimate issue with the templates, raised by TheCatalyst31 above, are indeed small and remediable. I've described above exactly how that remediation would be accomplished. With the issue of the non-applicable fields turned on by default resolved, these templates would become no less cumbersome than any infobox. Perhaps we should do away with those as well in favor of manually-rendered tables? I've also offered to assist anyone having difficulty implementing these templates. Your behavior here continues be self-centered and intellectually dishonest. You're up in arms about a preponderance of season stubs missing schedule tables, a preponderance that you created and now are singularly annoyed by. Three or four years is under the time limit for Wikipedia. The time limit, in case you're forgotten, is the end of time. In the meantime, the small band of hands we have on deck here may be busy working on other things, even fixing schedule tables on other articles that happen to be off your radar. If you continue to flout the consensus here and create more of your non-standard tables, I will be forced to apply for some sort of injunction or topic ban against you. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

JW - Of course, I appreciate your efforts on other things. We're all trying to improve Wikipedia, but accusations ("self-centered", "intellectually dishonest", saying a different approach amounts to "f-- em") aren't helpful. The schedule chart at 1947 Detroit Titans football team is far from the abomination you seem to view it as. To the contrary, it's fully sourced (unlike most schedule charts), it's quick and easy to use, it's comparable to the "simple chart" format used for NFL seasons, and the output is virtually indistinguishable from the CFB Schedule chart (with the exception of Mnnlaxer's "Source" column). As Corky noted above, "at least Cbl62 is willing to add the schedules." But instead of a thank you, I get threatened. "Bah, humbug!" Cbl62 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ejgreen77, if you want something like {{sports rivalry series table}} for this purpose, we can definitely do that. I just need to have a few samples showing the input syntax and output result and I can generate a module that does the formatting. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11, it appears that "style fork" isn't a thing. If you can find it somewhere in non-project space, please let me know. Also, consensus can change. It is entirely possible that current consensus could choose to allow simple tables that replicate the look of the template. Not saying that will happen, just making a point about your righteousness and absolutism in this debate. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, style forking is indeed a thing. Compare the schedule tables at 1951 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team to 1951 Michigan Wolverines football team to 1951 Detroit Titans football team. The style here is forked in three directions. The Michigan table represents our best-in-class application of project consensus. The Texas Texas table was produced in ignorance and remains because of neglect. The Detroit table is a product of Cbl's deliberate flouting of consensus. I'm well aware that consensus can change, but it clearly has not yet. As for your assessment of my point, perhaps before you denounce the behavior of others, you should establish a pattern of good judgement here on wikipedia, instead of initiating a spurious AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Arthur Baird, or kicking up a bunch of nonsense about including a 1992 team video on Carleton Knights football. Then later we find out you were a player on the 1992 team. Certainly no conflict of interest there! Jweiss11 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Come on Jw, it's about flouting time to stop flouting the flouty flout. And as for the Baird AfD, it was hardly "spurious"; I ended up voting "keep", but it was not a slam dunk by any means. Finally, nobody is defending or advocating the Texas Tech format, but I think the 1951 Detroit Titans schedule table is actually significantly better than the 1951 Michigan table with its (i) burdensome coding, (ii) empty and unnecessary columns for Game Time and TV, (iii) absence of game citations, and (iv) multiple rows spilling over unnecessarily to a second line. Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Baird AfD was indeed an utterly spurious slam dunk keep. The time and TV columns can be easily turned off. Time to start discussing with some intellectual honestly, Cbl, and stop advocating for concessions to your own neuroses. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

" ... stop advocating for concessions to your own neuroses." Seriously? Did you actually just type those words and then hit the "Publish changes" button? A neurosis is a mental illness/disorder. Such accusations are grossly inappropriate, Jw. Learn to conduct yourself in a civil manner! And please review WP:PA on the "types of comments that are never acceptable." Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone has neuroses. It's a common, basic human malady. And I think it's a clear diagnosis of what's happening here. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Jw. Neuroses are specific psychological disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, impulse control disorder, and anxiety disorder. Your flippant use of such language, and, now, your assertion of a "clear diagnosis" of same are inappropriate. Instead of apologizing, you have one-upped your violation of WP:PA. You're better than that; you don't need to resort to such low tactics to make your point. Cbl62 (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Jw, you are out of line for your comments toward Cbl62. (Those directly at me are merely silly, especially insisting I look at my own behavior first, when you are the vandal.) On "style fork", I know what you meant, no need for examples. My point was that "style fork" is not a WP policy, guideline, or essay as far as I can tell, just something you made up. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, what's way out line is you doubling down on Cbl62's defamation of me as a vandal. Now you have both libeled me. The whole reason we have template and a manual of style is to foster consistent style. When consistent style breaks down, you have a style fork. Perhaps I coined that term, but I've used it support of core Wikipedia principles. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

JW: You make accusations of mental illness and then accuse others of "defamation" and "libel". The fact is that your unilateral and willful mass removal of fully-sourced and verifiable content from 30 articles can be fairly, accurately, and reasonably construed as vandalism. You should also review WP:NLT re "Perceived legal threats" - please clarify your intentions in using the terms "defamation" and "libel". Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Jw, a wise man once said: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." Translation: "Templates and the MOS are made for editors, and not editors for templates and the MOS." Question: what core Wikipedia principles does having exactly similar tables in appearance and code support? "Wikipedia has no firm rules" perhaps? And while you're there, brush up on WP:5P4. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cbl, I don't plan to seek legal remedy against you or Mnnlaxer for your defamations. I'm not sure the damages here would be worth one minute of a lawyer's time. I don't even you know your real names, nor do I care to know them. Nonethless, I was simply making assessment of ethics here. As for my "accusations of mental illness", I talked about neuroses. Virtually all human have them. Who here is immune from stress or anxiety? The theatrics you've put on to suggest I made some sort of rarefied psychological diagnosis is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable minds can differ on the coding for season article "Schedule" charts, but the discussion of that topic over the past week has gone too far. In the course of the discussion, User:Jweiss11 (1) removed en masse my fully-sourced Schedule charts from 30 articles, (2) resorted to an f--- bomb, (3) overly personalized the debate by accusing me of being "self-centered", "flouting" policy and/or being "intellectually dishonest", (4) asserted that my suggestions for simplifying the Schedule chart amounted to seeking concessions to my purported "neuroses" (which, if one reads the wikilink, are specific "mental disorders" such as OCD, not simple "stress or anxiety"); (5) when called on this personal attack, doubled down by purporting to make a "clear diagnosis" of such conditions, (6) engaged in perceived legal threats by asserting that I had libeled and defamed him (I had cautioned that his unilateral, mass removal of sourced content from 30 articles could reasonably be construed as vandalism), (7) threatened to seek an "injunction or topic ban" to prevent me from creating simplified Schedule charts that differ in coding but produce functionally identical output, and (8) indicated that his accusations of libel and slander weren't an actual threat to sue, but merely an "assessment" of my "ethics". Apparently, he sees nothing wrong with his words and actions and views my protestations as "theatrics". To the contrary, such overly personalized and aggressive argumentation, incivility, and rudeness create a toxic environment and are corrosive to our core mission. Cbl62 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Design of new template

Following up on the suggestion by User talk:Frietjes (above) of the {{sports rivalry series table}}, I am opening a new heading to focus solely on format for a new template. The coding format of "sports rivalry series table" is very user friendly and desirable. Perhaps we should take a poll on what fields are truly needed. IMO, a more limited group of fields would be best, perhaps just (1) Date; (2) Opponent; (3) Rank; (4) Site; (5) Result; (6) Attendance; and (7) Source. I favor getting rid of "Time" and "TV" which are lesser details that could be dealt with in a "Game Notes" section (but if consensus is to keep these fields, I suggest that they remain optional as they are now). The "Source" column would not be needed once "Game Notes" are integrated into an article, so it should be an optional column IMO. "Rank" should also be an optional column, as it will not apply in many cases (where it has no application, no reason for an empty column). A simple asterisk footer for non-conference opponents could continue to be used, but the footer should be optional so it doesn't appear in tables for independent programs. In deference to the process, I will defer creating further tables until we work through this process. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, all of them elements of the existing footer can be turned off. See 1880 Harvard Crimson football team or an example. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The key from my perspective is jettisoning the burdensome and repetitive questionnaire format and adopting a simple format (a la "sports rivalry series table") where the agreed fields are set forth on a single line. Cbl62 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of retaining the time and TV fields. I don't see the value of having the fields "set forth on a single line". There's often enough information the tables that the text will easily wrap over onto a second line on most displays. The current layout, with each field on it's own line, is much easier to parse. See 2017 Michigan Wolverines football team#Schedule. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the simple chart format (a la "sports rivalry series table", and as used for NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc) is dramatically quicker and easier to use than the repetitive "questionnaire" format used by for college seasons (and no place else that I'm aware of). Also, maintaining empty "Time" and "TV" columns for old seasons (e.g., 1945, 1951 Michigan) is not a best practice IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

If the TV and time columns are irrelevant for older seasons, then those columns can be hidden. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they can be hidden, but practice is completely erratic (e.g., 1945 Michigan, etc.) because the coding is not user-friendly. A simple chart would make it much easier to eliminate inapplicable columns. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

College basketball uses Template:CBB schedule start and related templates. Template:Sports rivalry series table isn't a great comparison here because it's a much simpler table. So other then setting the defaults for the time, rank, and TV columns to off, what tangibly do you really want to change here? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

What do I really want to change here? I've said it many times, and I'll say it again -- we should adopt simple chart format (either as the standard format or as an alternative format) along the lines of what's been rolled out at 1947 Detroit Titans football team (which can be amended, of course, to add Time, Rank, and TV, where applicable, and to eliminate "Source" if consensus is opposed). As noted above (and ignored by you), similarly simple schedule charts are used by every major sport -- NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL. The simple chart format makes chart creation much, much easier. Like night and day. And it works great for the other major sports -- no missing seasons, no oddball formats (like 1951 Texas Tech and 1951 Wash. St.) resulting from the undue burden of trying to fill out the burdensome "questionnaire" for each game, no empty, superfluous columns because folks don't know the coding to turn off/hide them, etc. etc. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The manual charts used by the NFL and other sports (which I am well aware of) are inferior to the ones used for college sports because they lack the dynamic nature that allows for synced change down the line. In fact, I've considered in the past rolling out the college football style templates to the NFL and elsewhere. Can you be clear what exactly what you are proposing? Do you want to TfD the templates in question here and replace with manual coding? Otherwise, I can't see what tangibly you are proposing other than setting the default for the time, rank, and tv fields to off. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been clear about my advocacy for a simple chart format (which can be a standard or alternate format and does not in any way necessitate a TfD for the old format). However, in view of your recent personal attacks above, suggesting that my position is driven by mental illnesses/disorders (!!!) (my reply here), I am disengaging from you for the time being. Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be here when you're ready to move forward and have a honest discussion about this. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You claim to want an "honest" discussion, but moments before typing that, you one-upped your personal attacks by purporting to make a "clear diagnosis" of my mental condition. See my reply here. My discussion has been honest and does not require reliance on personal attacks or accusations of mental disorders. Can we now, please, disengage -- at least for the remainder of Christmas Day? Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Echoing Bagumba from a few days ago, "I think the overall contributions from both of you is more important than this single issue." I hate to see bad blood between established editors, but this one is especially troubling and frankly unexpected. It's not a stretch to say you're the two most prolific editors of college football articles. And you've collaborated countless times before. I have no doubt we can figure something out here just as we always have. Lizard (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope so, Lizard. A lively debate is one thing. Good things come from debate. But the f-bomb, the purported "clear diagnoses" of mental illness (!), and the insults ("self-centered", "intellectually dishonest") are not part of healthy debate. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Jweiss11, suggesting the straw-man of "TfD the templates in question here and replace with manual coding" (with their 11,000 transclusions*) is certainly not "honest" argumentation. I'm sure an easily-used template can be worked out soon if someone gets started working on it. The only question is who and how soon. I'm willing to chip in where I can, but the complex coding of these templates is beyond my skills. * For the 11,000 number, I'm assuming that includes season, coach, and program articles. If anyone has a breakdown of how it divides between those three (or more) categories, I'd be interested in seeing it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer: Cbl keeps talking about a "simple chart" and lauding the ease of non-template based schedule tables for the NFL, etc. What exactly does he want to do to simplify things beyond resetting the default for the time, rank, and TV columns from on to off--a change that seems to be supported by everyone here. He's been unable to article anything beyond hinting at the wholesale deprecation of the templates in questions here. So, I'm not engaging in a strawman here--your consistent pattern of poor judgement here on Wikipedia shows again. As for the 11,000 articles with these templates transcluded onto them, they are overwhelmingly comprised of team season articles; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:CFB_Schedule_Start. The head coaching records tables on the coach bio articles employ an entirely different set of templates (Template:CFB Yearly Record Start and complements) than the ones in question here (Template:CFB Schedule Start and complements). Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any hinting at wholesale deprecation. Rather, Cbl waited a long time before acting, would love it if someone helped put his wikitable into the template, and fully supports revising the template. So there are 11,000 CFB season articles that use the Schedule templates. Which means how many total CFB football seasons? I'd guess 15,000 at least, but someone probably already has a pretty good estimate. Amazing. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Source column

Throwing in my opinion here after skimming through; I agree that we shouldn't have to fill out inapplicable fields with "no". We should be able to leave these fields blank. I also don't see an issue with adding a "Source" column as Cbl has done on the 1947 Detroit Titans football team article (although I'd name it "Ref"). Lizard (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lizard, a source column seems unnecessary to me. For a fully-developed article, most if not all of the content in the schedule table will be repeated elsewhere in the body of the article, in prose and/or the individual game box score tables. That's where the source should ultimate be placed. While an article is in development and lack such individual game detail, any sources supporting the table can simply be appended to the end of schedule section after the close of the table. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The "Source" column is being proposed for the great majority of articles that are not fully developed with Game Notes. It makes sense to put generic sources (like an SR/College Football site) at the end of the table, but the proposed "Source" column is intended to include a link to detailed coverage of a specific game, as in 1947 Detroit. Such game-specific sourcing belongs on the same line as the game being described, not in a messy string cite at the end of the chart. Cbl62 (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, when an article is fully developed, the appropriate place to put the inline citation is further down in the article where the information in question is detailed in prose. Similarly, we don't have inline citations in infoboxes. We put the inline citation where the information is repeated in the body of the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

They could be used to indicate notability on articles that aren't yet developed. Lizard (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The "messy string cite" suffices for that. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Messy string cites are not a good solution. And the comment about infoboxes is a red herring. We're not talking about infoboxes. We're talking about charts where we regularly and increasingly use in-line citations. E.g., NEA NFL MVP award and Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award. Such in-line citations are consistent with Wikpedia policies on verifiability and sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, messy string cites are not a good solution for an article nearing full development. The proper solution is to put the citation where it belongs, further down in the article, where the game in question is discussed in prose. And the red herring is yours, Cbl. Those awards list article have no place where each winner is discussed in prose further down in the article. These season article do indeed have a place where each game is discussed in prose further down. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's be realistic -- 99% of the season articles are not "nearing full development". For those articles, a Source column helps address concerns about notability and verifiability and provides a valuable resource to someone who wants to learn more or go to the next step in bringing the article closer to "full development". Cbl62 (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another effective use of the source column can be found it the NFL schedule format. See 2015 Dallas Cowboys season#Schedule. Cbl62 (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The recaps? I see external links inappropriately embedded into the body of an article there. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That's just stylistic. They could just as easily be citations, which is what I'm proposing. Focus on the substance. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Those citations belong further down in the article, in the sections detailing each game. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the source column is a good idea... as long as they remain references and not external links. I'd also keep the label "Souce(s)". Corkythehornetfan 04:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. They should be references, not embedded external links. Significantly, 90%-plus of our season articles don't have sections "further down ... detailing each game," so the schedule chart is the natural placement for the citations. A growing number of our sports charts have source/ref columns, and there is no policy against them. Cbl62 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If there no are sections "further down ... detailing each game", then the table can likely be supported by a single citation or maybe two, which can simply be appended after the close of the table. There's no reason to get sources for each individual game unless you are going to create those sections down below. If you do go and get the individual game sources, good--go and put them where they belong. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Having game sources is a good thing. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lizard, looks like we discussed the issue of adding a reference column to the table back in 2015. Dirtlwayer (RIP) wanted to add a reference column, and Cbl agreed with me back then that it was unnecessary! Jweiss11 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that as well. Opinions can change over two years so it's meh to me. But still ironic. Lizard (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, opinions can indeed change. We just hope they change for the better. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I very much recall the earlier discussion as well. We've progressed considerably in the use of reference/source column in charts. We all need to keep open mind to change -- the old "questionnaire" style Schedule chart has been largely unchanged since 2007 -- time to change for the better. Cbl62 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Streamlined coding

To clarify, I'm not opposed to "templates". I'm simply proposing a version (either the new standard or an officially-sanctioned alternative) that applies simple chart coding/format. With a simpler template, a single game entry can be created by cutting, pasting, and rearranging the raw data from a media guide or SR/College Football in about 10 seconds. An example is found at 1951 Detroit Titans football team. With the current, repetitive, questionnaire format, it takes more than 10 times longer to create a single game entry. The differential is evident by a visual comparison of the input required to create a game entry using the two alternatives:

* The simple chart template: "|October 26||Oklahoma A&M||University of Detroit Stadium, Detroit||L 7-20||12,680||[source citation]"

(10 seconds to cut and paste the basic elements - finding a source obviously takes additional time, regardless of format)

* CFB Schedule Entry (a 15-part questionnaire for each game): "{{CFB Schedule Entry}}.

{{CFB Schedule Entry | date = October 26 | time = unknown (can I leave blank?) | w/l = w | nonconf = no (can I leave blank?) | homecoming = unsure (can I leave blank?) | away = no (do I write "no" or just "n") | neutral = no (can I leave blank?) | rank = none (can I leave blank?) | opponent = Oklahoma A&M | opprank = none (do I just leave blank?) | site_stadium = University of Detroit Stadium | site_cityst = Detroit | gamename = none (can I leave blank?) | tv = none (can I leave blank?) | score = 7-20 | overtime = no (can I leave blank?) | attend = 12,680 }}

(minimum of two minutes to analyze and manually input the data, then multiplied by 10 games per season, then multiplied by hundreds of seasons, and the time differential is ginormous)

The output of the two versions is virtually indistinguishable. And the time savings in using a simplified format is massive and facilitates much more rapid creation of schedule tables. Seems like a "no brainer" to me. Would love to hear input on this from someone other than Jw. Cbl62 (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

One option is to modify {{CFB Schedule Entry}} so that it also accepts unnamed parameters i.e. 1st parameter is always for <field1>, 2nd parameter is always for <field2>, etc., without needing to explicitly write "<fieldx> = " each time.--Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba, in that case you'd then have to remember the exact order the fields, which are empty, and how many "|"'s to place where. Again, let's not forget we also have to use same template to serve tables like one at 2017 Michigan Wolverines football team. Cbl, you can explain exactly how you want to simplify the coding other than to turn the default setting for the time, rank, and TV fields to off? Jweiss11 (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We could support both named and unnamed parameters, leaving it to the respective editor's preference.--Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see a mockup of that, if we could get one of the coding gurus to give it a shot. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we just combine the three schedule templates (Start, Entry, End) into ONE template? That's what's frietjes is suggesting (why the rivalry table was mentioned) and personally I think is the best option. It'll be much, much simpler and in the end will save us time because we won't have a hundred different templates to fill out... Corkythehornetfan 03:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Overlaying unnamed parameters on named parameters strikes me as needlessly complex, for the reasons Jweiss11 describes. It might be faster to create a table using that method, but at the cost of long-term sustainability. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this conversation should be moved to Template talk:CFB Schedule Entry. The discussion here has become convoluted with subsections and finger-pointing. Lizard (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No objection. Keep discussion going there. Prepare some alt versions. Then bring it back here for a vote sans insults. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cbl back to adding more non-complaint schedule tables

Cbl, why are you back to adding the non-compliant schedule tables? Can please cease and wait for the relevant templates to be reworked? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Can you please stop with the non-compliant schedule tables and wait until the templates are reworked? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to fight about this any more and hopefully a streamlined template will be approved soon. In the meantime, there is no question that my revision today at 1897 Harvard Crimson football team (and three days ago at 1899 Yale Bulldogs football team) providing full game details, improved formatting, and reliable sourcing represents a very significant improvement over what was there before (compare here and here). Remember our efforts to improve Wikipedia are incremental; my edits advance that process in a positive way. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits to improve these articles, but all of your non-compliant, manual tables are going to have be redone. In the meantime, our consensus on style is being undermined and we remain more and more exposed to a malignant style fork. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: There was a general consensus that the existing templates could be improved, and an openness towards using a streamlined template in the future. In the meantime, I realize that you disagree with Cbl62's non-use of the existing template, but everyone else to date has said that his tables have been a net positive nonetheless. Complaints of the edits being "non-compliant" or a "malignant style fork", though well intended, are more rigid than Wikipedia intends to be. My suggestion is that we all move on, continue improving content, and enhance the available templates. Thanks.--Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm not sure who the "everyone else to date" is. And you are minimizing the damage Cbl is doing with his deliberate flouting of long-standing, core consensus. I don't plan to move on until this issue is resolved properly. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

JW -- I don't object to your recent edit at 1903 Yale, but your aggressive edit summary (here) is not one of your better moments. Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: I can't put it another way: please WP:DROPTHESTICK. I do not know if there was long-standing consensus as you state, I do believe that there is current consensus (i.e. WP:CCC) for these edits of Cbl62's, and general agreement on an improved template going forward. And there is no issue from Cbl62 or anyone else if you or anybody chooses to enhance his tables.--Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, if you'd like to avoid further "aggressive" edit summaries, please cease and desist with your campaign to flout our long-standing consensus on schedule tables. Bagumba, perhaps I should invoke WP:5P5 and disregard all of your terrible commentary on this issue? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss, no one has supported you in your quest to prevent imaginary "style forks". Plus, a third party called your removing Cbl's tables "unjustified". That means there is no legitmate reason they should be removed, which means that there is no problem with creating them. Plus you have no idea what wikipedia principles mean. First, you claimed that removing the tables was in support of core wikipedia principles. When called out, you first cited this project's essay and then ignored my rebuttal. Now you say "there are no firm rules" means you can denigrate others. You are completely off base here. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, we've already discussed how you have terrible judgement here on Wikipedia, e.g the spurious J. Arthur Baird AfD and that self-interested, COI-infused nonsense about the 1992 Carleton team video. Frankly, you are of out league trying to take me on here. I've been working on this college football stuff for over a decade, stuff that you're still in the process of discovering how to navigate. You've also misinterpreted how and why I threw "there are no firm rules" back at Bagumba. It's a tautological premise that can be applied to everything; therefore it has virtually no meaning. And even if my removal of the Cbl's tables was "unjustified" (an assessment I don't necessarily agree with), that wouldn't mean that there is no problem with creating them. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Your comments above ("you have terrible judgment", "you are out of league" directed at User:Mnnlaxer and to a lesser extent "all of your terrible commentary" directed at User:Bagumba) are inconsistent with WP:NPA's guidance: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." You are way, way, way better than that. Cbl62 (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content of other's arguments here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, when you say "you have terrible judgment" and "you are out of league", most persons would objectively view that as commenting on the capabilities or personal attributes of the contributor, rather than commenting on the content." Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Personally, I would like to see ban placed on the both of you from season articles until the new schedule template is completed. I'm tired of seeing this war - that isn't going anywhere - keep continuing. As I said above, I see no problem adding these tables until something new replaces it. If others don't like it, they can fix the problem themselves and replace the tables with the schedule templates. However with that being said and this childish war continuing, I do think we need to stop adding schedules to the historic seasons until the new template is completed. Frietjes said last week that the new table is almost complete. On another note, just because you've been editing with this WikiProject for a decade doesn't give you higher authority over others... you don't own this WikiProject and/or its articles. Corky 18:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think an WP:IBAN might suit your needs better, not an outright ban on the articles. I was holding out hope that the poll below would put an end to this.--Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree the interaction ban would be better. Let's hope the poll works. Corky 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish Jweiss11 would simply "WP:DROPTHESTICK", as Bagumba urged above. But I do not think an interaction ban is necessary or desirable, as I generally get along with JW and have engaged in cooperative editing with him for many years. I am not motivated here by any desire to aggravate JW; to the contrary, it is upsetting to me that he has reacted so negatively to my efforts. What motivates me is the sincere desire to improve season articles. I voluntarily paused creating new charts for 12 days from December 24 until December 5 in hopes that a streamlined template might be approved. I remain committed to helping with the overhaul, but that may take weeks, and in the meantime, I currently have the time and energy to continue improving season articles (that's a big part of what I do around here). I oppose any sort of injunction on my continuing those efforts. Does anyone other than JW really believe my efforts earlier today at 1891 Princeton Tigers football team are not a positive contribution to Wikipedia? That it bothers Jweiss11 is unfortunate and unintended, but it is not a valid basis for an injunction against my work. Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, you do realize that some editor, whether that's me or someone else, will have to redo the table you've created at 1891 Princeton Tigers football team at some point in the future. This would not be necessary if you just used the existing templates. Perhaps this will cost you an extra X minutes. But it will save another some multiple of X minutes in the future. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This argument is a red herring for the reasons I've outlined below under Corky's vote. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Corky and Bagumba; the only ban that's remotely warranted here is a ban on Cbl creating more non-standard tables in contravention of long-standing project consensus. Despite our conflict here, Cbl and I are having no problem cooperating other topics, even side topics related to these very tables; see User talk:Jweiss11. So, an interaction ban is unwarranted and impractical. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll on Cbl62's editing

Is it appropriate for Cbl62 to continue to create manually-rendered, non-template-based schedule tables (e.g. [1]) in contravention of long-standing consensus among this WikiProject and its sister college sports projects?

• No, it's inappropriate and irresponsible flouting of consensus and project-wide cooperation. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I object to the phrasing of the poll which presumes my edits are in "contravention" of anything. Nevertheless, I have provided my substantive response below. Cbl62 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. It has facilitated the addition of schedule charts to many long-neglected season articles. See, e.g., 1890-1891 Princeton; 1897, 1900 Harvard; 1890, 1896, 1899, 1931 Yale. These charts provide full game details and a format that mirrors the template-based charts with the bonus of a "Source" column that advances Wikipedia's core principle of WP:V. These additions represent a significant improvement over what was there before. Remember our efforts to improve Wikipedia are incremental; my edits advance that process in a positive way. If Jweiss11 or others wish to tweak the formatting, they are free to do so as Jweiss11 did at 1903 Yale. Let's all work together to keep improving the encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Cbl62's edits have been fine For the record, I do not know if there is a "long-standing consensus among this WikiProject and its sister college sports projects". At any rate, Cbl62 has been adding verifiable facts, and anyone can enhance his presentation if they see fit.--Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, perhaps you should do you research then and confirm this obvious fact about long-standing consensus before weighing in? Look at the history and transclusion count for Template:CFB Schedule Entry. Looks how it's used uniformly for college football team season articles with two exceptions: 1) newbie editors who don't know what's going on and aren't acquainted with this WikiProject and its consensus styles and 2) Cbl62 in recent weeks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You might have missed where I wrote "At any rate ...". Regards.--Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes and No - Though I personally believe the tables are fine, I think we should just quit adding schedules until the new template is done. Corky 19:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Corky, my expectation here is that whatever changes are made to the templates in questions, a bot will sweep though thousands of existing tranclusions to bring them in line with the new form. I see no reason to cease creating tables using the templates as is. There's not much difference between a bot having to make a run through 10,000 articles or 12,000. Editors are in the process of building the 2018 articles using them and we should not thwart that effort. However, Cbl's non-standard, manual tables will likely have to be brought in line manually--essentially redone--one-by-one. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

JW -- Your argument is a red herring for two reasons. First, there is no "need" to modify what I've done at, e.g., 1891 Princeton Tigers football team; it is perfectly fine, well formatted, and fully sourced as is. Second, if the formatting bothers someone, they are free to reformat it, and the time required will be less than if that person were starting from scratch, as I've already done all of the substantive work in collecting the correct information and sources. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That you think this is all a "red herring" is simply a product of your fundamental disrespect and disregard for the long-standing consensus regarding these tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes As Cbl62 has pointed out multiple times, he's adding schedules to articles that didn't have schedules for years. It's hard to see why this isn't an improvement for the reader, who probably doesn't care that much about consistent formatting, and it's not like he's getting in the way of anyone who's trying to add templated schedules, since nobody appears to be doing that. TheCatalyst31 ^{ReactionoCreation} 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31, many people are engaged in adding templates schedules. Your suggestion to the contrary is utterly false and should be retracted. Take a look at any of the 2018 articles coming online. Take a look at my edit history, e.g. 1926 Texas Tech Matadors football team. Take a look at the hundreds of articles with properly-formatted schedule tables that User:Ocfootballknut has created in recent months. The problem is that there are thousands of articles to get to. Cbl isn't reducing the backlog of the number of articles that need properly formatted tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My point is not that nobody's adding schedules, it's that nobody seems to be getting to the ones Cbl62 wrote anytime soon, and I see nothing wrong with using non-templated ones for now. Worst-case scenario for folks using the templates is that they can just delete the old one and start from scratch, which isn't really any different from not having a schedule at all, and until they get to that (which could take years) we're providing better content for the readers. I can't get behind making articles worse for readers just to make things be a little better for editors down the road. TheCatalyst31 ^{ReactionoCreation} 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• No While the non-formatted schedules are undoubtedly better than no schedule at all, Cbl62 is creating unnecessary work for later Wikipedians who will eventually have to convert them to the CFBSchedule template. Frankly, the unformatted tables are an eye sore when you're used to reading the formatted ones. Do it right the first time, since you are investing the time to do it at all. Ostealthy (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ostealthy: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I am not talking about unformatted schedules. Do you view the table at 1891 Princeton Tigers football team to be an "eye sore"? Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I really have mixed emotions but the entire table on 1891 Princeton has a black background and some blue links all the info is not readable on the computer I am using.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure why the table might be rendering that way on your computer. Does anyone with technical smarts know why this is happening on UCO2009bluejay's screen? 22:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison

There are only a handful of readers who would know which one below is the "correct" template and which is "non-compliant". (Those are actual scare quotes).

The first one is preferrable to me, I would like to see the official template move the rivalry to after the team name, use 100% font, get rid of the big dot, and get rid of the empty row at the bottom. And add a source column. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, do you know how much easier it is to make those sort of changes, like moving the placement of the rivalry link, where thousands of articles are affected, when you have the tables based on templates? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As for the placement of those rivalry links, what would do you with a table like the one at 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team? Do the four rivalry links move to the Opponent column, but the Rose Bowl links stays where it is? Or does it move too? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the reader isn't supposed to know which form is the compliant one. The reader is supposed to only ever encounter one form, so that their experience is consistent as they move between analogous topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1. "I would like to see the official template..." 2. Move all to after opponent. Was that supposed to be a hard question? 3. Their experience is consistent looking at those two tables. That's my point. Even if a "style fork" existed, this would not be an example. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1) The point here is that Cbl's non-use of templates doesn't support automated, systemic changes like this. 2) Fair enough. I wasn't sure that you had thought through all the permutations. 3) It's pretty ridiculous that you continue with your campaign of denialism that inconsistent formatting can exist. It would be honest of you to admit that exists, but that you simply don't care about it. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl62 still adding non-complaint schedule tables

@Cbl62: If you create one more non-complaint schedule table, as you just did at 1895 Princeton Tigers football team, in flouting contravention of long-standing consensus and our cooperative efforts to provide readers with a consistent user experience, I will open an item at the administrators' noticeboard to see about having a topic ban enforced upon you as a last resort to try and stop your stubbornly disruptive editing. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Choosing to WP:FORUMSHOP when you already started a straw vote would make it appear that your intent is to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I hope this is not the case.--Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm escalating in an attempt to resolve a chronic problem. But again, doesn't your raising of Wikipedia:5P obviate the relevance of your raising of WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:BATTLEGROUND, since it can tautologically be applied in every scenario? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Your threatened forum shopping is unmistakable and transparent. Fortunately, Frietjes has now rolled out of the new simplified template, which appears even more user friendly than anyone could have hoped. The simplified format promises to save hundreds of hours of editor time as we create new season articles and tackle the backlog of season articles without schedule charts. Hopefully, you recognize this significant benefit, and we can move forward without further acrimony. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, I have no problem with anyone working to improve the existing templates. My only problem was with you bypassing that process, flouting the existing consensus, and doing your own self-serving thing. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Still with the insults. You could use a lesson in graciousness. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

User:Lion1407/sandbox/Harrison Stewart (Football Player)

Hi WP:CFB members. I'm not sure if this would fall under your WikiProject's scope, but was wondering if someone might mind taking a look at User:Lion1407/sandbox/Harrison Stewart (Football Player). I stumbled across the draft while checking on some recent image uploads. I'm not sure how undrafted/unsigned former college football players are assessed for notability, but WP:NGRIDIRON doesn't seem to apply here. Anyway, if Stewart's notable, the draft creator could probably use some help with the formatting, etc. to bring it inline with relevant policies and guidelines. Someone might be able to help out with the images as well. I also have a slight suspicion based upon User talk:Diannaa#Harrison Stewart Photos that there might be some connection between the creator and Stewart. This is not such a big deal as long as the draft is submitted for review through AfC, but could be an issue later on if the draft becomes an article and the creator continues to try and edit it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Intercollegiate Football Association

And now for something completely different. I took someone's advice and took a look at 1880 Harvard Crimson football team for showing the footer row items turned off. After noting the template still produced a row, just empty and narrow, I also noted that as recently as just over a month ago, the article was quite bare [2]. I certainly would place more emphasis on fleshing out important articles like this one over creation of new stubs, but that's just me. And thanks to Cbl62 for adding two good sources.

Princeton, Harvard, and Yale were the "Big 3" that dominated college football in the 19th century. I agree that these articles should be a high priority to expand and develop. Please feel free to jump in! If you have questions, feel free to ping me. Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, after making a couple of corrections, I went to 1880 Princeton Tigers football team to make the same neutral field fix. From this article, I have a couple of issues: (feel free to jump into the middle of this thread to address points specifically - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC))

1. The Princeton articles of this era treat the Intercollegiate Football Association as a modern-day conference, with conference champions and records, although with many question marks for conference records. The other IFA members, Yale, Harvard, and Columbia, do not. They are "independent". (A term that has its own problems for teams of this era.) So what's going on here, just a more ambitious editor for Princeton? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on UW Dawgs' contribution below and no objections, I'm going to remove the IFA conference from Princeton's season articles. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Another issue for Princeton articles is the clunky lead. First, why the repetition of national championship streaks: "This season marked the tenth national championship in 12 years, and one of 11 in a 13-year period between 1869 and 1881." I would also make the parenthetical less clunky by putting the more common name factoid into the second sentence. Also curious if just "Princeton" is more accurate than "Princeton College". The full phrase is not mentioned in the History of Princeton article, just a transition from College of New Jersey to Princeton University. However, Princeton is used as the current name throughout, so it's hard to tell. And google treats "Princeton College" as equal to "Princeton University". A minor point, but if I'm going to change all the leads, I'd like to be accurate. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to reword the clunky lead. "Princeton College" was the commonly used name for the undergraduate school in the late 19th Century. A newspapers.com search turns up 772 hits for "Princeton College" in 1880, only 39 for "Princeton University". See also this book on the "Class of 1874 of Princeton College." Cbl62 (talk) 06:34, 26 D]]ecember 2017 (UTC)

I began to look at 1869 to start this project, but got distracted with 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game, which wasn't in great shape (and rated low-importance). Then I got completely distracted. But I'll get back to the Princeton leads today. Can anyone chime in on whether IFA is a conference? If not, I would omit the conference parameters completely, but the stupid template requires it, and creates a wikilink for everything entered besides Independent. This is a separate discussion, but today's use of Independent does not apply to 19th century teams, when conferences membership was not the norm. It would be easy to make "Conference" an optional parameter in the template. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Some more context, here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 18#Intercollegiate Football Association. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great, and I agree with your final decision. IFA is a rules-making body (and scheduling probably), but isn't a conference. Certainly not like today's conferences. I don't have any problems with the current IFA article, but I have a higher inconsistency threshhold than some. That article could use some more prose, history, and references however. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wmtribe2015: My sense is the article you created at Intercollegiate Football Association may go to AFD, shortly. Currently that article's content is presented as a college football conference. There is confusion around whether it is a conference and/or a governing body, using those terms loosely due to the era. Currently the article is functionally unsourced. Can you shed some light? Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: I wouldn't AfD the article. I would take out the list of champions (now) and add prose about the organization (I'd work on it). The IFA was a real thing, and important in the early development of American football. An article with a quick background (start in 1869) and an explanation of IFA would be a very useful article to wikilink or See also on many other articles without requiring wading through the very long Early history of American football. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

2017 Wisconsin-Whitewater Warhawks football team

This article has been prodded for deletion as not notable. It is a Division III program. At the time of the prod, it was sourced exclusively to the UW web site, which is not independent. What do people think? Should it be deprodded? Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it should be AfD'd, not prod'd. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Start the actual discussion on improving the Schedule templates

I've started a discussion here: Template talk:CFB Schedule Start. Just starting with easy issues related to turning columns on/off and footnotes in Schedule End. I would recommend getting consensus on those issues before getting to Schedule Entry. I also found out that {{CFB Conference Schedule Entry}} exists, and there's {{CFB Yearly Record Entry}}. Any other families of templates that this discussion might touch? And are there any project template code experts that are volunteering? Or is it necessary to rely on Frietjes to do the heavy lifting? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

One person has commented at that page. And it looks like Frietjes is going to do the coding. Apparently, there will be a new, single template to use, but that means no changes to the output or requirements of the current template. No CFB to watch today and the NFL only has a couple meaningful and closely contested games. So how about it? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Is anybody going to work on this? I don't think it's too hard, but someone has to direct Frietjes how to code the table. Is everybody drained from the bowl game and/or sad the season is over? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Frietjes said they should have a demonstration template finished soon. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Table style 95% font-size

Might as well stir the pot some more. I would recommend removing all the 95% font-size styles for CFB template tables. There is so little to be gained from that 5% reduction, it seems pointless. But I'm sure Jweiss has some reason to keep it. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the goal there is to keep text in the various field from wrapping onto a second line in a standard display. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a standard display. And nowrap can handle the no wrapping. And you can probably get the 5% back if you change the big dot to a comma. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Per standard display not being a thing, see computer display standard and [3]. Per font size, yes, I'd be for a nowrap on all fields, but the larger the font, the more likely it is to either wrap, or, in the case of nowrap, invoke a horizontal scroll bar. Template:Infobox NCAA team season uses 90% font size for everything except for the top (title) field. If anything, I'd be in favor of dropping down to 90% to match that. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That's screen resolution, when screen/window width is the important variable. I don't favor nowrap at all, just saying if that's your priority, then use it on columns like date and result. Infoboxes are limited width, so the smaller text makes sense. Absolutely no reason to use in a table that has up to 100% width. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Eastern Independent Conference football standings templates

I have nominated Template:1892 Eastern Independent Conference football standings and Template:1893 Eastern Independent Conference football standings for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Please join the discussion

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Bowl game infobox updates

Just asking, I have maintained that the score in an infobox of a bowl game should not be updated until the game has concluded, then the score should be added to the infobox. I've done a lot with keeping bowl game pages updated with scoring summaries and team statistics and I was wondering if there was a consensus on this already, or if one could be reached? Thanks, PCN02WPS 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until a game is concluded. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Edit war

2017 UCF Knights football team, and, to a lesser extent, UCF Knights football, probably need admin intervention. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS could use the same, too. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Former Guilford coach and AD Herb Appenzeller died

See link. Posting in case anyone wants to create an article - he is a redlink on the Guilford coach navbox. Rikster2 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Colors in infoboxes

I would like to propose adding team colors to two infoboxes relating to this WikiProject: Infobox NCAA football school and Infobox college coach. As of this post, college football is the only sport that doesn't use school colors in its infobox (see Category:American college sports infobox templates for the other college sports infoboxes). Yes, there is only one header in the NCAA football school infobox ("Current uniform" header) that would use the colors, but it would still bring the template in alignment with the other sports templates. On the coaches infobox:

Infobox basketball biography currently uses colors from Module:College color, Infobox NFL biography does not. It looks odd and confusing when the colors are used for one template and not the other. As with the NFL and basketball biography infoboxes, we could make it so once the coach or administrator is no longer coaching or performing administrative duties, the colors would not show.

For a quick summary, I want to add school colors to the NCAA football team and college coach infoboxes, as well as add the module to NFL biography. In the coaches infobox, once a coach/administrator is no longer active, the colors get removed. Let's align the templates so we are consistent! Thoughts? Corky 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just commenting on Infobox college coach. I don't think Charlotte Smith should be defined by her current college coaching job. That won't change, but it's not right to change college coach just to match it. Grey headers are certainly not confusing. But more importantly, this template does not just relate to this project. I would suggest not discussing it here, but at the template's talk page. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I had invited other projects the template is used for to this section. The reason I brought it here is because a most of the members will see it on a WikiProject before the template, especially if they don't have it on their watchlist. It seems the most active users belong to multiple sports projects so it's best to just leave it in one place. Smith is just one of many examples. We need to be consistent. Corky 04:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have the discussion on the template talk page and direct this and other projects there. Currently there isn't anything about this proposed change at the template talk page. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, again, I found that it is much easier to get a discussion going at a WikiProject than a template's talk page. There is no problem doing it this way. I will post a section for others to visit this section if they'd like to discuss it. I may post a notice there once I've got a general consensus from here - assuming others are willing to discuss it - informing those that have it on their watchlist that colors will be added if that's the result. Corky 16:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be easier to get a discussion going here, but those that watch the template need to be informed now at the very least. Plus, you've got two different templates under discussion here. I would leave the NCAA football school here and cut and paste the college coach discusion there. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I can go either way on this, but it would bring some consistency. I am only in favor of colors for ACTIVE coaches, though, not historical ones (like Dean Smith). Leave former coaches grey, it helps differentiate active from retired and colors get confusing for the vast majority of coaches who are at more than one school during their careers. Also, I really fail to see why Charlotte Smith's infobox shouldn't reflect the colors of her current job. Jason Kidd's infobox shows the Milwaukee Bucks even though he never played there, what's the difference? Rikster2 (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the plan to only color the active coaches. Corky 16:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support. I'm not a huge fan of decorative color, but it would be consistent with navboxes and such, and it's not like color stuff is "banned". We just don't want to see people trying to do lame cutesy effects in the prose, or sticking icons all over the place. -- SMcCandlish ? ¢ >^???_??^?< 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Rikster, also agree don't allow for non-active coaches.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Rikster. Corky, I think this change makes sense and thanks for proposing the change. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support use of college colors for active coaches, per all above. If I remember correctly, the exclusion of the colors from Infobox college coach is a leftover from the Dirtlawyer Era. I think we can move ahead and do it now. At the very least, Module:College color should definitely be added to the NFL box; it's just about the only colors that aren't in there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: Colors were added to the templates for consistency. Colors are only shown for active coaches, administrators, etc. Thanks, Corky 19:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus" national champions

I just stumbled across Category:NCAA Division I FBS championship team navigational boxes. The navboxes in that category declare the teams in question are the "consensus national champions". For 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 the relevant articles repeat the claim but don't back it up with a reliable source that, without original synthesis, confirms that the teams indeed were the "consensus national champions". (I didn't check for earlier years.) Our coverage of what, exactly, makes a team "consensus national champions" is extremely poor; I even got the impression that there might be several teams with valid claims to that (non-)title for a given year. What's going on? Can this be fixed by finding better sources than I have managed for 2017 (where, effectively, I found none), or should the claim be removed from the templates and the articles? Compare Talk:2017 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. Huon (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a starting point re "consensus." College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Yearly national championship selections from major selectors. Some of the navboxes in that cat are indeed consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this seems to be WP:OR. Lizard (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The NCAA uses Consensus to refer to teams selected by all major outlets. Refer to page 120 here: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2017/FBS.pdf TTownTurkey (talk)

Well that settles that. This is why citing sources is important. Lizard (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, that doesn't quite settle that. 1997 and 2003? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What about them? Lizard (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Unanimous national champion"?

User:TomHidden has edited 2014 Ohio State Buckeyes football team to replace the typical "Consensus national champion" with "Unanimous national champion" in the infobox. Is this appropriate? Seem inconsistent with articles for other national champs that may have been unanimous selections, at least among the major selectors. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1917 Georgia Tech was the only one I knew which had it. Cake (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The term "Unanimous" lacks a definition in the way that "Consensus" does have a specific meaning post-1950. So Infobox of "Unanimous national champion (4 of 4 official selectors)" should be changed. The cite (NCAA Record Book, pg 111) at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Yearly national championship selections from major selectors gives us "BR, HAF, HS, NCF" with no other teams selected in 1917. So "National champion" is fine. There are others (such as 1971 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team with "Unanimous national champion (17 of 17 official selectors)" where "Consensus" is accurate -and it's 18 by my count). UW Dawgs (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Many of the "Unanimous national champion" banners were my doing. I had thought it was helpful to distinguish those team named NC by all NCAA-recognized selectors. Having reviewed this discussion, I agree that the "unanimous" designation may be too loose. I have begun removing the "unanimous" designations and replacing with "consensus". Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

More minutiae

Why aren't the scores on the game summary tables centered? Template:AFB game box start It looks weird. While I'm at it, the wrap of the game details is silly too. Just put it underneath. And why is there a big dot in front of the winner? Bolding doesn't always display or something? The big dot itself is stupid. A comma does just fine between two different items. Do I need to ping Jweiss11? Probably not. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxerm, [4]. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, this used to be centered, there was a Wikipedia-wide change to the way tables were displayed a while ago, it screwed up the way this and many other tables are displayed. Obviously, no one has gotten around to fixing this one, yet. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Template

Can someone kindly look into the navigation box templates Template:Georgia Bulldogs roster nabvox and Template:Georgia Bulldogs Roster navbox. Appears like some inexperienced editor has created multiple templates that are improperly formatted. Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 14:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what these would be used for even if properly formatted. They should be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The user was trying to make something like this Template:New York Jets roster navbox. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This type of thing isn't as applicable for college football, where not all of the players are notable. If these templates were finished, they would be mostly redlinks. Agreed with Jweiss, send these to TfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not into American football and wouldn't be able to judge whether these are notable/useful or not. If you think so, please feel free to nominate it for deletion. Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 09:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Redundant templates

Template:NCAA College Football Championship Games navbox, and Template:BCS National Championship Game navbox comprise the same things, and the former lists articles that likely won't be created on a stand alone basis (see 2008, and 2009 for D-II.) At the very least these navboxes should be merged. Anybody agree, disagree, or would have a different idea about what to do with them.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:NCAA College Football Championship Games navbox should simply be deleted. It's ill-conceived. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting AfD

You are invited to help reach consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Walker III. It involves a player who does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON after being cut in NFL training camp in 2017. He played college football in a major Power Five conference in a large metropolitan city with multiple local newspapers. He had an average college career at best, and is not otherwise notable for anything outside of football. This could help establish a precedent on how to handle players of this sort. Regards.--Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the first AfD I've seen in which I'm entirely neutral. 50/50 both ways. If there was ever a prototype "on the fence" article it'd be this one. Lizard (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there are a very small number of papers (NY Times, Washington Post, etc) that qualify as more than "local paper" status even if the subject plays for a local team. I feel like the LA Times may be one of these papers. It seems weird to me that a player from Oregon State could use a lengthy profile from the LA Times as a legit source but a UCLA or USC player couldn't. This small (but undefined as of yet) group of papers represent some of the most reliable sources there are, and they do need to be more selective than (for example) the Reading Eagle or the Richmond Palladium-Item with their content, even when dealing with one of the big local teams. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The regional papers I typically hold in higher regard are NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune, in that order. I do tend to view the coverage of a local player by one of those papers to be less significant, and I think most would agree. But, as Cbl62 states on that AfD, guidelines do not explicitly make this distinction. Lizard (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Decided to go with "weak delete" after reevaluating the universe and the meaning of life. Lizard (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• It has never been policy that local or regional papers have no weight in a GNG analysis for college football players. Bagumba can speak for himself, but that is not even what he's advocating in the Walker AfD. If such a rule were to be adopted, it would inappropriately place athletes in a separate category where a higher burden is required than for other types of biographies (e.g., mayors, businessmen, local TV personalities, etc.). More significantly for members of this project, such a rule would result in the deletion of roughly 90% of the articles on college football players who played in the era when there was no ESPN.com and did not go on to play in the NFL. In that era, the reliable, independent coverage comes from major metropolitan dailies There is an old saying in the law that "Hard cases make bad law." The Walker AfD is such a hard case: his notability is marginal, but those weighing in to the effect that local and regional coverage should be disregarded should be very wary of the profound impact such a precedent could have on thousands of meritorious cases. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI -- A policy excluding local and regional newspaper coverage and requiring national media outlets would strike an even more devastating blow to coach biographies and season articles. Putting aside the top 50 all-time coaching legends (e.g., Bear Bryant, Pop Warner, Knute Rockne, A.A. Stagg, Fielding Yost, Tom Osborne, Frank Leahy, Woody Hayes, Bud Wilkinson, Barry Switzer, Bernie Bierman, John McKay, Bob Neyland, Walter Camp, Bo Schembechler, Howard Jones, Red Blaik, Bob Devaney, Wallace Wade, Jock Sutherland, John Heisman, Dan McGugin, Robert Zuppke, Biggie Munn, Gil Dobie), 90% (maybe more) of the remaining pre-ESPN coach articles are supportable by local and regional newspapers, but would fail at AfD if coverage in national media outlets were required. Similarly, putting aside the top 15 or 20 programs (e.g., Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma), 90% (maybe more) of the pre-ESPN season articles would fail at AfD if coverage in national media outlets were required. Just saying. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All good points. However, it would be more beneficial to have this discussion in the AfD itself.--Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ole Miss vacated wins

We have an issue on the Ole Miss 2008 through 2016 season articles and other related articles and standing templates regarding vacated wins. An IP editor is claiming that all wins for those nine seasons have been vacated, but the sources cited from December only indicate that some number of wins may be vacated at some future date. The IP editor has also been edit warring with Cubone5147. @Cubone5147: please weigh in here. Anyone else have the skinny on this subject? My sense is that the alleged vacations are premature. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Surely we should wait until the official announcement of the vacated wins? Jhn31 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jhn31. Until they're officially vacated, they should not be removed. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted all the recent edits from the 9 Ole Miss season articles the 9 SEC standings templates in question to remove reference to the potential vacations, which have not yet occurred. Let's keep an eye on this one! Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've got every page for an Ole Miss football season since 2008 on my watch-list, and I try my best to keep the pages free of inaccurate edits. I've warned this user before to stop, but I don't see any other option within my power than to try and keep the pages clean, thanks. Cubone5147 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lombardi Bowl

The article Lombardi Bowl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While I can find some announcements about the proposed initial game and invitations to it, I can find nothing about it actually occurring. I don't believe that this college all-star game that was announced and never played is notable because there is not significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ?  Bigr Tex 00:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Another interesting AfD - Richard Mannello

Another interesting AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Mannello. The issue presented is whether there should be a presumption of notability for college football coaches at the NCAA Division III level. Feel free to weigh in if you have a point of view either way. Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sufficient coverage has now been found so that this particular case arguably passes WP:GNG, but the question remains: Should a presumption of notability apply? Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

An SNG for a D3 coach? WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST aside, we don't even have an SNG for FBS coaches.--Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree but someone apparently told DGG (the AfD nomination) that NSPORTS covered DIII coaches (it does not). Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

New User:Debartolo2917 making radical changes to several lists, some featured

A user who joined us in December has taken WP:BOLD to a new level. The user has been radically reformatting "college players in the NFL Draft" lists without consensus. See List of Texas Tech Red Raiders in the NFL Draft, List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft, List of Oklahoma State Cowboys in the NFL Draft, List of Texas Longhorns in the NFL draft. The editor's plea in edit summary is that they have spent so much time on it, please keep. At least two of the lists are featured level. So far the editor is talking only in edit summary. Can someone diplomatic please help? BusterD (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of bold in introduction to season articles

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID to change the use of "bold" lettering in the introduction to season articles. As this affects a protocol that has been in use by the college football project and other sports projects, please feel free to add your view at the discussion so that a consensus can hopefully be reached one way or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Progress on new CFB schedule template

@Bagumba, Cbl62, Corkythehornetfan, Ejgreen77, Jweiss11, and Mnnlaxer: here is a demonstration of the new template/module: [5]. basically, the input is very similar to the output, but (1) you don't bold the W/L, (2) you split the stadium from the location, (3) you can use simple hyphens for the score and the module will turn them into dashes and align the scores by correctly padding the W/L, (4) once I get it working, it will automatically add the footnotes at the bottom of the table for timezone, non-conference game, ... please let me know what you think so I don't waste time working on something that isn't going to work. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We need a demonstration that uses all the possible fields including, time, TV, rank, homecoming, etc. The table at 2017 Alabama Crimson Tide football team would be a good example. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

see the examples in Template:CFB schedule. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: The new template/module looks fantastic! Thank you so much for doing this! Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• looks good to me, I like it! Corky 18:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Frietjes, thanks for your work on this. What do we do about the 10,000+ articles using the old templates? How do we transition those? @Mackensen: you voiced some concerns above about long-term sustainability with unnamed parameters. Can you expand on that? @Bsuorangecrush: and @Ocfootballknut: as regular users of the schedule templates, do you have thoughts here? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Playing around with it and I'm liking what I see so far. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Jweiss11, Personally don't like single line entries that use totally freeform text and unnamed parameters. And I wouldn't have allowed programmers who worked for me to design something that way if it was going to be deployed on a widespread basis. It requires that everyone use / remember a VERY standard order that may/may not be compatible with all the options. Have run into too many cases where the entries were made in the wrong order and it turned into a maintenance nightmare. IMHO, of course, and from experience in the corporate world, not with Wikipedia. But assuming something like that goes forward, I guess I'd have to use the text "at" to denote away games and "vs" (with or without the "."?) for neutral site games? Would you just type in the rankings by the team name (Variability problem: No. 6 Princeton vs #6 Princeton vs No 6 Princeton vs 6 Princeton vs Princeton #6, etc.) Same thing for opponent ranking, of course. How does conf/non-conf fit into this? Homecoming? LOVE the addition of a source column ... it's sorely needed and totally agree with moving the rivalry notation. I will have to completely recreate my Word template that has about 800 school/stadium/nickname/year combinations, but that's ok. Same with the macros I've written. But again, that's ok. Not sure what you're planning to do with the footer.Ocfootballknut (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • you can type '@' or 'at' or 'vs' or 'vs.' and they get converted to the standard output. you can also type '# 1' or '#1' or 'No.1' or 'no 1' and they get converted to the standard output. I could add to that any other reasonable variation. for non-conference games you type '<ncg>' and it gets converted to the footnote. for homecoming games you type '<hc>'. I could make it automatically add the corresponding footnote to the footer when it sees this anywhere in the table. right now, you add |ncg=y and |hc=y (as before) to toggle the addition of these to the footer. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• FWIW, I've opened a Holding Area with some schedule chart examples using Fritjes' new template/module. My experience so far is that the ease of use is excellent. This will save hundreds of hours of editor time. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• other potential improvements could be (1) splitting the "gamename" into a separate column if say |gamename=y (off by default), (2) automatic addition of (most of) the footnotes based on what is observed in the table text, (3) calculation of the total W/L/T record with a summary at the end of the table. Frietjes (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• note that, if people are big fans of the old templates, it would be possible to make those a bit less syntax intense by introducing "zero-width columns" instead of omitting columns which would reduce the amount of syntax in the individual entries when the various columns are turned off. Frietjes (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you planning to planning to keep the old template or submit it for deletion? Fbdave (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So long as the output is the same, why not let individual editors decide which template works best for them? Maintaining two templates doesn't seem particularly burdensome of fraught with peril. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity and long-term stability, we should certainly not have the new template and the old set of templates co-existing for more than a short transition period. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We should be working to make the new one the best one, and migrate and deprecate the old one.--Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And we should make sure the niche editors who typically create the articles for upcoming seasons know they should be using a new template. Lizard (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lizard, yes indeed. Deprecating the old templates and converting all tranclusions to the new template will be necessary. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Jweiss & Bagumba. We should only be using one uniform schedule template. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: I rolled out 1979 Central Michigan Chippewas football team as a test case to see how the '<ncg>' feature works. My version is not rendering the explanatory footnote. Did I do something wrong? Or is there a glitch? Cbl62 (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It needed the ncg option turned on for the overall table. Should the footnote be automatically added if one of the entries sets it?--Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

    Thanks, Bagumba. Automating the footnote if <ncg> appears in the chart sounds like a good idea if it can be done without too much trouble. Cbl62 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

    @Bagumba and Cbl62: this is now automatic per your suggestion. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Frietjes. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Bagumba, Ejgreen77, Jweiss11, Lizard the Wizard, Corkythehornetfan, and Frietjes: I've cranked out about 160 new schedule charts at User:Cbl62/holding. Ease of use is A+++. Any thoughts on a timeline for official rollout? Cbl62 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, I like what I see, but I have a few issues:

1. I'm not a fan of the unnamed parameters per User:Ocfootballknut and User:Mackensen's objections above.
2. I'd like to see the at/vs indicator and opponent rank broken out from the opponent field.
3. I maintain that the source field is unnecessary. If a particular piece of data, like attendance or time or stadium, can't be cited from a general source for the entire table or cited elsewhere in the article, it should be cited in the particular cell, not the row.
4. I think we should eliminate the hyperlinking in the the "Rank" column heading. The existing templates facilitate dynamic linking to the relevant FBS rankings article, e.g. 2017 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings, but we should be more flexible to serve lower divisions. Also, there are many cases where the subject team was never ranked, but had ranked opponents. In those cases, the rank column in unneeded, but a wikilink to the relevant rankings article to give context for the opponent rankings is appropriate. The place to do all this linking is in the footer.
5. Finally, and most importantly, the roll-out of the new template requires a plan to convert the 10,000+ transclusions of the old templates, so that we can keep things synced up and deprecate the old templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Jweiss' comments:

• After seeing the new template, Mackensen expressed no such objection. To the contrary, and when you posed the question to him, he said "I'm liking what I see so far." The entire reason for the revision was to eliminate the "questionnaire" format and greatly simplify editors' ability to copy and paste game data into a simple format such as this. It allows for a schedule chart to be created in about one-fifth the time required by the painful old "questionnaire" format. Reverting to the old format in which 20 or so pieces of data had to be separately inserted, one by one, into a particular named module for each game defeats the whole purpose of the new template. We have a huge backlog of articles without schedule charts, and the new format has proven to be a way to quickly work through that backlog. That's a very good thing.
• Why is it better to break out the at/vs indicator and opponent data into a separate column? That complicates the structure, requires more editor time, and does so without any real benefit. Simpler is better.
• As for the "Source" column, it is optional, but the majority of those who commented seem to favor it.
• If someone wants to devise a way to convert all of the old charts, that's sounds perfectly reasonable, but I don't see that as reason to delay roll out of the new template for newly-created schedule charts. Cbl62 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I like it, I don't see any problems with the new template. I do agree with Jweiss and think that "Rank" should be unlinked... I never have been a fan of that. Is this something a bot can do or will we have to do this manually? Corky 19:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to unlinking the "Rank" bit. Cbl62 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Corky, we don't want to merely unlink the rank header. We want to move to the link to footer. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd favor the link in the footer over the header. Corky 22:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• The footer for the rank column currently refers only to the Coaches Poll. I prefer the old footer: "Rankings from AP Poll / Coaches' Poll released during the week prior to game." This allows greater flexibility, particularly for historic seasons before the Coaches Poll was created. E.g., User:Cbl62/holding#1945 Columbia (rankings only available from AP Poll). Do others agree? Cbl62 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cbl, you just don't get it, do you? We're not going push this new template out unless we are prepared to deprecate the old ones. There will not be two sets of concurrent schedule templates. I know that's what you want, because it will allow you to move forward with your personal editing agenda. But it's not in the best long-term interests of the project. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I see my suspicion was correct. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My "huh" was actually inspired by (i) the placement of your comment beneath my question regarding the footer, and (ii) your continuing to refer to my motives as "self-serving" or my having a "personal agenda". My only agenda is to improve the encyclopedia. Frietjes has created a better mousetrap that allows us to create high-quality schedule tables MUCH more quickly. I've already prepared more than 200 schedule tables using the new template and can easily roll out hundreds more. Nothing self-serving about that. As for your substantive point, I have no objection to suspending use of the old template. Cbl62 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The speed at which you can create a schedule table depends a lot on which table you are creating and how you are creating it. If you wish to created one for 2018 Maryland Terrapins football team, which will undoubtedly come online in the near future, the easiest way might be be to copy the table at 2017 Maryland Terrapins football team or 2016 Maryland Terrapins football team and modify accordingly. Guess which templates the 2016 and 2017 Maryland articles are using? Perhaps you should slow down prototyping instantiations of the new template in your user space, because the new template isn't finalized--there may well be changes to it form--and we don't have a plan to convert all 10,000+ tranclusions of the old templates to the new one. Before that happens, we can't suspend use of the old templates and we can't roll the new template into production. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Guess which template the 2016 and 2017 Maryland articles are using?" Ummm ... the old one? Since that's the only one that's currently in use. Look, your opposition to the new template is clear. If you really had the best interests of the project at heart (as you have in the past), you would assist with its prompt rollout. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much in favor of a new template, done properly. I think, frankly, you are out of element here. Templates and data management don't appear to be your strong suit. You seem be having difficulty understanding the issues at stake here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't take an IP expert to recognize the high quality of Frietjes work. The only one who is "out of element" is you when it comes to courtesy and grace. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, since my name has been used twice here, while I don't like non-named parameters it's obvious that's the way you're headed. Please make sure you have a plan to take care of the two major issues you're going to have with this:

• Maintenance when people create schedules with the un-named parameters in the wrong order (this WILL happen)
• Conversion of existing schedules, and newly created ones to the new template. People will continue to use the old version as long as it's available. It's the path of least resistance. So the sooner you have a plan to convert all of them to the new format and eliminate the old one the better. Ocfootballknut (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

OC - Agreed that maintenance will be required if people get things in wrong order. My view is that this effort will be worthwhile and more than offset by the increased speed in creating new charts. (The old template also has significant maintenance issues when people mix up various on/off options.) Try creating a sample chart with the new template. I think you will end up liking it. I am happy to help in any way I can. As always, your efforts in building out the California articles are appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: I like your idea of automatically computing W/L/T at the bottom of the chart. Could we also have it automatically compute at the bottom the total points scored and allowed by adding the figures in the Result column? Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  Cbl62, yes, any parsing of the W/L/T and scores should be possible. I plan to wait until we are absolutely sure that this is the desired new input format before adding any new features or functionality. it is still possible to support named parameters (without number suffixes) if that's more desirable. I could mock up an alternative version to show what I mean. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Frietjes: Is it possible to construct the template so that an editor can choose named or unnamed parameters based on personal preference? Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  Cbl62, yes, that would be possible. basically, we could have a |entries= where you could pass a bunch of {{CFB Schedule Entry}} templates, but with the syntax improvement that you can omit non-applicable parameters. in other words, you wouldn't need to say |tv=no in every entry (just once at the top). Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  User:Frietjes, thanks, that's very intriguing. Might be just the thing to satisfy those who prefer it either way. Would you be willing to mock it up to see if it satisfies the group? Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Progress on CFB schedule template with named parameters

@Bagumba, Cbl62, Corkythehornetfan, Ejgreen77, Jweiss11, Mnnlaxer, and Ocfootballknut: hopefully I am not providing too many options here, but based on the comments concerning unnamed parameters, I have implemented alternative syntax which is much closer to the old templates. for a comparison, see the second syntax example in each of the examples. note that we are using lowercase {{CFB schedule entry}} in these examples. I have not updated the rest of the documentation.

1. {{CFB Schedule Entry}} and {{CFB schedule entry}} are nearly identical in function, but {{CFB schedule entry}} adds some invisible markers needed for {{CFB schedule}} to parse the entries.
2. With the old {{CFB Schedule Entry}} you have to say |tv=no to turn off the TV column. with the new {{CFB schedule entry}} you can remove the column entirely instead of saying |tv=no. the way omitted parameters are treated is the only functional difference between the two templates. to see a comparison, look at the testcases
3. If we go with the new system, we can merge {{CFB Schedule Entry}} with {{CFB schedule entry}}.
4. If {{CFB schedule}} detects that a column is completely empty, it will remove the column. so, you never have to say |tv=no to remove the TV column. however, you can override the removal of an empty column (e.g., the TV column) with |tv=y.
5. the {{CFB schedule}} and {{CFB schedule entry}} templates understand the key words <ncg> and <hc> and will appropriately add the footnotes at the bottom of the schedule.
6. you should be able to add the opponent rank to the opponent name using '#1' and the template will automatically read this and change it to 'No. 1'. or, you can leave it as a separate parameter as well.

let me know what you think. clearly the amount of typing is more with the named parameters vs. the unnamed parameters, but the syntax is less of a change from the old, and conversion from the old to the new should be fairly simple. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: Thank you again for your efforts. Based on your recent edits, including at 1891 Princeton Tigers football team, I assume this system still allows an option for the unnamed parameters. Am I correct? Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Cbl62, yes, as you can see in the examples, the template/module supports both input formats at the moment. I can obviously disable one of the two if it's confusing the have two input formats. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Something for everyone. One syntax allows rapid cutting and pasting and table creation. The other can be used by those who prefer the named paramaters and also facilitates easier conversion of older tables. Your assistance is much appreciated, Frietjes! Cbl62 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of new CFB schedule template

@Bagumba, Cbl62, Corkythehornetfan, Frietjes, and Jweiss11: I've just created the 2018 Maryland Terrapins football team page using the new template, and wow. From a somewhat avid college football page editor and creator, it's amazing. Very easy to use, saves tons of space (the entire schedule takes up the same amount of space in the source code as one or two games would with the old template), and saved me tons of time; I did the entire schedule in 3-5 minutes. I didn't want to take a side in this, but from the perspective of someone uninvolved at all in this argument up to this point, the new template is very easy to use, I love it, and I support implementation of this template in CFB pages as opposed to the old template. If its alright, I'm going to switch over to the new template in all season page articles from this point on. A massive thank you to User:Frietjes, your work is extraordinary. PCN02WPS 17:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending issues for discussion re new template

This is my attempt to capture the pending issues regarding the new template. I list them so that consensus can hopefully be reached relatively soon. Issues include:
1. Should we include the dual syntax allowing users to choose either unnamed or named parameters? I am a big fan of unnamed parameters (as it allows much greater speed in chart creation), but have no objection to using the dual syntax for those more comfortable with named parameters. The optional, dual syntax strikes me as a reasonable compromise.
2. Should "at/vs" be broken out into a separate column? Jweiss11 raised this above. I think it's better to have fewer columns, as it facilitates the use of unnamed parameters, but don't feel terribly strongly. What do others think?
3. Should we include the "Source" column? Most comments above seem to favor it, and I believe it is useful as an extra optional feature.
4. Unless there's any objection to Jweiss11's suggestion above, the wikilink for rank should be moved to the footer.
5. Should we take Frietjes up on their suggestion to add coding that will automatically compute W/L/T at the bottom of the chart? I think it's a good idea. I also favor having it coded to automatically compute at the bottom the total points scored and allowed.
6. In the latest revision, a "#" was added to the column which automatically triggers a footnote about polls. This is being included even in charts where it is inapplicable. See 1891 Princeton Tigers football team#Schedule. This should be remedied so that the footnote only appears where ranking information is actually used.
7. Should users be permitted to start now using the new template in main space? PCN02WPS has asked for permission to begin using it. I also favor this. If rollout is to be delayed further, I have no strong objection so long as we move promptly to resolve the remaining issues.
If others have suggestions/issues, please add them here. Let's work this week to resolve the open issues. Cbl62 (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Just a comment: I'd love to have the WLT and total points for-against automatically computed at the bottom of the schedule. I think those would improve the template. I've used the template in several articles up to this point and it's saved me countless hours already, I can't wait until this template is fully implemented into CFB articles. PCN02WPS 03:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

2) at/vs needs to be broken out as its own parameter. We have 10,000+ tables out there already with those data points isolated. We should not wash that away when we convert to the new tables. Leaving it isolated gives us flexibility to do more things down the road. 3) Source column is unneeded as I've explained above. 4/6) Yes, the wikilink for rank should be moved to footer, but we should have a systematic rendering of the link like we have in the existing templates, but it should be more flexible to serve sub-FBS divisions. 7) No, please stop trying to rush this. This new template should not be moved into production yet. We need to resolve all these issues, see the protoype, and and write up clean and clear documentation before that. We also need a plan regarding how we are going to convert the old tables to the new template. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, opponent rank need to be it own parameter. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Vacated games

The IP user who keeps changing the Ole Miss records also keeps changing Notre Dame's 2005 and 2008 records and results because they lost to teams whose wins were vacated. I don't want to violate WP:3RR; can someone else figure out how to handle this? p?e:nu:mu: ->? p?i:ny:my: -> ??inimi -> ?fi?imi 19:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure the IP has done enough to warrant a block. p?e:nu:mu: ->? p?i:ny:my: -> ??inimi -> ?fi?imi 19:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is covered at Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories. I left the user a note and reverted the 2 articles I could see s/he'd changed. JohnInDC (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia