Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject College football (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

New rivalry articles[edit]

Three new rivalry articles have cropped up in last week or so:

Are these legit rivalries? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

My $.02, I don't believe so. You may find something on Alabama-Clemson for the things on modern times. (Also NCAA 2K3 had a glitch where the announcers pretended it was the Iron Bowl, but I digress.) These are just the latest string of SEC Conference match-ups that someone thinks is a rivalry that we've consistently seen little evidence to pass guidelines. (Anybody want to create Texas A&M-Kentucky?)--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, these are not rivalries at all. Speaking as an Arkansas fan, Arkansas-Miss.St. is not a rivalry. It's a SEC matchup with some competitive games recently. It's not presented as a rivalry, never has been. Neither is Alabama-Clemson. IMO, neither is Arkansas-Auburn, but that page continues to live on. If it was my decision, I'd axe that page too. PCN02WPS 02:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Echoing the other two replies, I vote no. Rivalries in college football are built over decades. They are characterized by mutual hatred fostered over generations. They are not defined by a few successive high-stakes matches (Alabama-Clemson) or a mere repetition of games between conference foes. Ostealthy (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In US sports, non-notable rivalry articles seems to come up most often in college football. Would people support some adding some wording in WP:NRIVALRY saying it needs to be more than a source about an upcoming game that throws out the term “rivalry”? There should be coverage that talks about it’s history beyond last year’s result.—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely support that, considering all that's there is a single line of text. PCN02WPS 15:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, my effort from back in 2015 to distill some meaningful standards in this topic area can be found at User:Cbl62/College football series notability. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Cbl62: That's a fine start for concrete examples for the WikiProject, but too specific for sports rivalries in general and WP:NRIVALRY. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/76ers–Lakers rivalry which I nominate before (since deleted), these seem like generic talking points: Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games or series, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. Moreover, routine coverage liberally uses the term rivalry to manufacture hype. Currently, the lone substantial work cited is from Fansided, an amateur blog site for fans.Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd support something along these lines:

"In order to support a stand-alone article, a rivalry should have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. The type of coverage required is in-depth coverage dealing with the series as a rivalry and not simply WP:ROUTINE game coverage.
Factors that may considered in determining whether a series should be considered a rivalry include:
(i) Geographic proximity. While not necessarily the case, intra-city (e.g., UCLA–USC, Knicks–Nets, Islanders–Rangers), intra-state (e.g., Apple Cup, 49ers–Rams), or border-state series (e.g., Bears–Packers, Michigan–Ohio State), are more likely to be considered rivalries);
(ii) Existence of a trophy (e.g., Little Brown Jug) or an official name for the series (e.g., Freeway Series);
(iii) Competitiveness of the series (a competitive series is more likely to be considered a rivalry);
(iv) Length and frequency of play (series of short duration or which have been played infrequently are less likely to be considered rivalries); and
(v) Prominence of the programs (series played between prominent teams (e.g., Dodgers–Yankees or Celtics–Lakers) are more likely to be considered as notable rivalries)."

Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand your points, but I don't think they would be effective as SNGs. I believe SNGs work best when they are either objective points where notability is presumed if one is met, or red flags on notability mistakes. Though well meaning, I have seen on many occasions where people argue notability using WP:NCOLLATH's "Gained national media attention as an individual", which is a weaker, more subjective standard than GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's another two new rivalry articles created by the same editor:

Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There are other pages such as Auburn–Florida football rivalry, Auburn–Tulane football rivalry, Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry and some other debatable pages that I have noticed that doesn't seem to be discussed in this thread. Why don't we discuss those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talkcontribs) 20:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
From what I can see, we are not discussing those pages because they appear to be rivalries. Though the three you linked are all defunct rivalries in the sense that they are not played annually, that does not make them not rivalries. Auburn and Florida played every year from 1945–2002, Auburn and Tulane played every year from 1921–1952, and Auburn and Tennessee played annually from 1956–1991. On the flip side, Alabama and Clemson have never played for more than four years in a row. Similarly, Louisville and West Virginia played for seven years in a row, from 2005 (when Louisville joined the Big East) to 2011 (West Virginia's last season in the Big East), but never again since then, showing that it was only a conference matchup. Arkansas and Mississippi State have played annually since 1992, the year Arkansas joined the SEC, showing that it's always just been an SEC West divisional game and not necessarily a rivalry. PCN02WPS 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
We got the Arkansas fan perspective and I as a graduate from MSU and fan of the team, I don't consider Arkansas as a rival. I say the main rivals for MSU in football, is Ole Miss, Alabama and LSU in that particular order. There might be some people that might consider the Razorbacks as a rival for their own personal reasons, but its not a main rival of the school. Its just a team that we have to play annually. I consider TAMU as a big rival, but that is just for my own enjoyment. For the UTEP-UTSA rivalry, that is a rivalry that could spark anytime, with the many similarities that both the schools share such as both being apart of the University of Texas System. Its not as big as Texas State rivalry is to UTSA and the Battle of I-10 is to UTEP, but it soon could be. Just like how the North Texas–UTSA football rivalry got heated real fast between the two schools and only played 5 games. --Jpp858 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Just because a game is played every year for a period of time doesn't mean its a rivalry. I doubt Auburn fans consider Florida a true rival like they do Alabama and Georgia. Same goes with Florida. Florida fans probably wouldn't Auburn on the same level as Georgia, Florida State or even Tennessee. There needs to be a distinction between historical series and rivalries. Ole Miss and Georgia played every year from 1966-2002, but there seems to be hostility towards them as a rivalry. Alabama–Penn State football rivalry is another page that I'm concerned about. Alabama and Penn State don't consider each other rivals. Bama fans wouldn't put Penn State alongside LSU and Auburn, and PSU fans wouldn't put Alabama alongside Michigan State or Ohio State. These are inconsistencies that need to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talkcontribs) 22:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a Ole Miss–Auburn rivalry page was created yesterday. I think the following articles should be nominated for deletion Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry, Alabama–Clemson football rivalry, and Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry. Many of these "Rivalries" have not been around long enough to be considered notable. CollegeRivalry (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

CollegeRivalry, I agree completely. PCN02WPS 01:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fellas, can we please refrain from removing any of these rivalry article from team navboxes? As long as a rivalry article (or really any article about a given team) exists, it should be included in the relevant team navboxes. If you don't think something is a legit rivalry, please AfD it. Simply removing it from a navbox just sweeps the problem under the rug. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: the Arkansas instance is my bad, I won't do that again. However, will there be any organized effort to delete some of these non-existant rivalry pages? PCN02WPS 01:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
PCN02WPS, no worries. I don't think anyone here should he bashful about nominating any of these for deletion. I'll vote delete on any five I've bulleted. @CalebHughes:, I hope you won't be discouraged should any of these articles you've created be deleted. I see you're a pretty new editor. Even though I think these five articles are not notable enough as rivalries to warrant articles, the work you did there was well-written, well-formatted, and well-cited. I hope you'll continue you efforts. Perhaps you want to tackle some Division I program, team season, or coach articles? None of those are in jeopardy of being deleted. You're also right that there are probably a bunch of other iffy rivalry articles that have lingered around a while. Let's identify them and see about nominating them for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Jweiss11 Lets look at Alabama–Penn State football rivalry, Auburn–Tulane football rivalry, Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry, Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry, Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry, Rice–Texas football rivalry and Penn State–Temple football rivalry. All these are debatable for one reason or another. Those are the ones that jump out at me. However, there may be more, so lets be diligent and look at all rivalry pages. I'm not sure how to nominate them for deletion, so maybe could you or another editor do so? Thanks. CalebHughes (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)CalebHughes
CalebHughes, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That page has all instructions for nominating an article for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I would support deletion for most of the pages listed above by CalebHughes, and I'm preparing a deletion bid for Arkansas–Auburn as well. @CalebHughes: I'd be willing to work with you to AfD some of the pages you listed, if you need assistance. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
PCN02WPS Jweiss11 I have nominated all said rivalry articles for deletion. Please feel free to visit the AfD pages and correct any format errors I may have made. Thanks! CalebHughes (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@CalebHughes: just a few comments - you have skipped several key steps in these AfDs. Please, please read the instructions on this page. The entries are missing some things (there is a template you need to paste in; your reasoning for deletion goes there) and these AfDs aren't listed anywhere. Drop me a message on my talk page if you need some assistance. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry[edit]

@Jweiss11, Cbl62, UCO2009bluejay, Ostealthy, Bagumba, CalebHughes, and CollegeRivalry: I have nominated the Ark-Miss.St. rivalry page for deletion, the link to the discussion can be seen below. I would greatly appreciate everyone's opinion, even if they may differ from mine.

AfD discussion link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry

Thanks all, PCN02WPS 04:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating. I have voted to delete. Going forward we should refrain from arguments in these discussions that rest on some editor's personal testimony as a football fan of one program or another. What matters here are the reliable third-party sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@CalebHughes: A prolific new editor has created seven[1] of these new "rivalry" article all of which seem to fail WP:GNG at a glance. A bulk AfD (WP:MULTIAFD) seem appropriate. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be willing to bulk AfD these within the next day or so if the community thanks that would be appropriate. PCN02WPS 19:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Additional AfDs are appropriate, but I oppose a bulk or mass AfDs in such cases. Each claimed rivalry involves very different histories, facts and circumstances and needs to evaluated on its own merit. These articles cannot and should not be evaluated "at a glance", as suggested above. Bulk or mass AfDs discourage the separate evaluation of each case on its merits. WP:MULTIAFD does not apply here, as there is not (a) a "group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles", (b) a "group of hoax articles by the same editor", (c) a "group of spam articles by the same editor", or (d) a "series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products". MULTIAFD further states: "For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as 'should wikipedia include this type of article'. Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it." Cbl62 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As just one example, Alabama–Clemson involves very different circumstances. That series has a history dating to 1900, has decided or helped decide the national championship each of the past three seasons, and has a history of multiple high profile meetings, including 2017 (#1 vs #4), 2016 (#1 vs. #2), 2015 (#1 vs. #2), 2008 (#9 vs. #24). There is also a considerable body of coverage now referring to this as a rivalry. E.g., here, here, and here. Not sure which way I would vote until digging in to do some fairly involved research, but it seems comparable to Alabama-Penn State that was kept in an earlier AfD discussion here. By bundling articles like this with others that have little in common, we do a disservice to the process and act counter to WP:MULTIAFD. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As a second example, UTEP–UTSA might properly be deleted given its recent vintage, but it involves a distinct issue as to whether a new or developing rivalry should have a stand-alone article. (Compare, e.g., Battle Line Rivalry.) There is coverage talking about UTEP–UTSA as such a rivalry. E.g., here, here, here, here, and here. Again, I don't know which way I would vote without digging deeper, but there is a reasonable discussion to be had here, and bundling it with 5 other, largely dissimilar rivalries tends to hamper and limit the analysis/discussion of each article's merits. Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry[edit]

I want to let everyone know, I have nominated Georgia–Ole Miss rivalry page for deletion. 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry

Just a note: the discussion can be seen at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry, rather than the above link. PCN02WPS 05:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rivalry/series AfD library[edit]

Given that we appear to be in a fresh wave of AfDs aimed at rivalry articles, I've created a library of past discussions on this topic for whatever assistance/perspective it may provide. It is found here: "Rivalry/series AfD library". In looking over the outcomes, I haven't agreed with all, but it does appear that our project has been diligent and thoughtful in policing this area. Cbl62 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD: 2017 Angelo State Rams football team and 2018 Angelo State Rams football team[edit]

2017 Angelo State Rams football team and 2018 Angelo State Rams football team have been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Angelo State Rams football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Angelo State Rams football team. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going to create the other teams in the conference, but I'll wait until this is settled. I still believe it should be kept. --Jpp858 (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jpp858: What would help the cause of saving these articles and those of their fellow conference members would be to beef up to the 2017 Angelo State article with strong third-party sourcing. Perhaps you want to take that on? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jpp858: Jweiss is right. To save these articles, we need significant coverage from multiple, reliable, and independent sources. If you can come up with such sources, you will have a strong argument that WP:GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Watchlists on season articles[edit]

For the first time since I've started creating pages, we already have pages created for every FBS and FCS team long before the season starts. I also went though and added all the game summaries. So since we are so far ahead I decided to expand on pages, right now with adding players on watch lists since most of them are being released this week. However, User:Rockchalk717 has removed them from the Kansas page simply saying "Watchlists are not notable. Do not include." If they are not notable then why do they exist? As long as they are sourced I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be included. Thoughts? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I will be reverting the page again ONLY because Wikipedia policies require during a content dispute, the page remain on the predisputed version during the discussion.
Now for my view point, there are many things that exist that aren't notable for Wikipedia. Each watch list as 20 or 30 players. There are over 30 awards and most of which have watch lists. Some players can be featured on multiple. So that means there are 500+ players named to watch lists (probably more) that do not even wind up being finalists. Some group position awards, such as Butkus or Thorpe, can have multiple players from the same team named. The combination of the high amount of awards and the high number of players named to the watch lists, dilutes the importance and notability.--Rockchalk717 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say that Rockchalk717 makes a good point that there are lots of players on lots of watchlists that aren't finalists, which may not be notable enough to include in every team's page, but personally I wouldn't delete the list from Arkansas' page, or any other page for that matter. PCN02WPS 04:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 99% of players on watch lists don't end up winning the awards, or even get named as finalists, but the watch lists still garner attention for the players on them during the preseason. They are important enough for the schools to announce them when they have a player on them such as Kansas did here. I would say that makes them notable. Why not show the attention players are getting before games are even played? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
A player being listed on an award watch list means that the player is expected to be one of the 30ish best players at his position for the season. For a league with 130 teams, that seems pretty damn notable to me. A Butkus watch list player is considered to be one of the 50 best defensive players going into the year, out of the 1400+ players expected to be defensive starters. This is exactly the kind of thing you'd want in a "preseason" section, along with the teams placement in media polls. Good work on this, BSU. Ostealthy (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's look at it this way, Kansas (kills me to admit this being a fan) is at the bottom of teams from the power conferences. Barring the .01% they have another random 10+ win season like in 2007, any players on Kansas have next to no shot of winning any award. Additionally, I believe watch lists are just barely notable enough to be included in the body of an individual players article, but not notable enough to be on the season page or in the players infobox.--Rockchalk717 17:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It may depend on the particular award. Butkus Award is one thing. But consider the Rimington Trophy. Its watch list recognizes 57 college football centers. See here. That's roughly 50% of the starting centers in Division I FBS. With such a low threshold for inclusion, its listing in a season team article strikes me as "padding" or "fancruft". Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I am yet to see an argument as to why they shouldn't be included. Schools recognize them. Sportscasters mention them being on the lists during broadcasts. They recognize the best players for each team. They have been included on season articles in the past. I don't see any difference between these and preseason all-conference teams (which I also plan on including on team pages). Why not have pages with as much information as we can? Especially when it is all sourced. "Padding" is adding info about radio rights (some pages have it), massive depth charts that don't get updated, off season departures listing players that have nothing to do with that season, returning starters. Watch lists seem to warrant inclusion far more that some things that get included. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You may not agree with it, but I've given you an argument as to the Rimington Trophy watchlist. A preseason watchlist that includes half of the starting centers in Division I FBS is just not sufficiently notable. IMO inclusion on this particular watchlist is in the nature of WP:FANCRUFT. Also, our season articles are becoming overwhelmed with charts. We should be endeavoring to make our season articles more rich with narrative text and less laden with charts upon charts. Cbl62 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
2018 Alabama Crimson Tide football team is a good example. I have to scroll at length through eight very dense charts before I get to the 2018 schedule, which is IMO the single most important piece of information about an upcoming season. Way too many charts! Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, we should always put the schedule table at the top of the body, immediately following the lead? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I am 1,000% -- no, 10,000% -- in support of that! Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that would be ok. It may look strange to have the schedule in front of some preseason/recruiting items, but It is probably the most important part of the article. Maybe after the previous season section? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way but just because you personally don't agree with the argument doesn't mean it isn't a valid one. I don't agree with yours, but it is still a valid argument. The Rimington trophy is a prime example of how diluted watchlists are which causes what is, in my opinion, a lack of notability with them. You mentioned the previous season section too, which I've never really agreed with the inclusion of that section either. If someone wants to know what happened the previous season they can simply navigate to the previous season which is always linked in the article. The point Cbl62 makes is a good one too. If we so vote to include, we need to make easy to navigate especially for the powerhouse teams like Alabama LSU USC Miami etc that have recruits and everything in them.--Rockchalk717 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You keep on bringing up the Rimington as though it's a representative example, when really it is an outlier. Here are the 2018 watch lists so far:
  • Bednarik: 88 defensive players out of a pool of ~1430
  • Biletnikoff: 50 receivers out of a pool of ~390
  • Doak Walker: 122 RBs out of a pool of ~260
(this one is egregious but to be fair, it designates this list not as a watch list but a candidates list)
  • Lott Trophy: 42 defensive players out of a pool of ~1430
  • Maxwell: 84 players out of a pool of ~3380
  • O'Brien: 26 QBs out of a pool of ~130
It seems clear to me that most of the watch lists actually do recognize who the best players are expected to be in the upcoming year. Most teams will only have 1-10 players listed. It seems like listing these watch list players is a perfectly fine way to help paint a picture of the team's preseason expectations. Ostealthy (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's the problem with inclusion of it, then we will eventually have the question come up "Should we include preseason awards, preseason All-Conference teams, pre-season All-American teams". Before we know it the season pages will be overloaded with more information then is comfortable to navigate through for a sport who's season is 3/3 and a half months long for most teams.--Rockchalk717 02:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Preseason conference teams should be included, and I plan on adding them as they come out. I don't think all-american teams should be included because there are just too many papers/magazines/pundits who put out their own lists, that would be a bit much. Only reason this is even an issue this year is because we are so far ahead. These lists in the past were only added on pages, mostly P5 pages, who had a devoted individual editing them. With every page created well before the season we can actually expand on them. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
AP All-American would be fine to use. That's what most consider the official All-American team anyway. It seems we are heading towards the consensus of inclusion and to list the schedule first, but what about the order after that? Roster perhaps?--Rockchalk717 05:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Schedule first is key. I'm flexible on what comes after that. Cbl62 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think watch lists are more suitable at national level at 2018 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Breaking down by conference is undue, somehow seeming to prop up the conference. I think only the winners need to be mentioned there.—Bagumba (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That does make pretty good sense actually. I think that's a good idea.--Rockchalk717 03:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The third rail of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign[edit]

Full disclosure I graduated from a Division II school, and am generally an inclusionist for season articles. But I also will defend to my end on this project the rule of consensus. That being said, the Angelo State AFDs bring up a good question, what qualifies as a notable season for a small college program? This has been a third rail for the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign, as we have fully addressed that Division I FBS seasons are notable (often including those where the school played below Division I), and at least since 2010 created pages for every FCS school's season (which would suggest notability at the FCS level). However, some editors have created articles for schools that many have never heard of, and have decades old defunct programs. While I certainly don't object to these, especially if they pass some guideline, I don't believe we have addressed what should be included for Divisions II/III and NAIA. Above all, if these articles pass GNG they should be kept. But what about the NSeasons standard, I think it is time we come up with a definitive framework. Here would be some questions/statements/proposals I have:

  • A) All Division II-III/NAIA national championship seasons should indisputably pass the notablity guideline for seasons. They all get at least some national mention after all. ex. 1974 Central Michigan Chippewas football team & 2017 Texas A&M–Commerce Lions football team, etc.
  • B) We should set a bar what level would be acceptable, my suggestion would be for all playoff appearing teams, as well as conference championship seasons. ex. 1992 Carleton Knights football team
  • C) Set a guideline regarding WP:Seasons regarding time frame and divisional changes. Of course the idea behind "Notability is not temporary" should reign supreme. Not all current FBS teams have always been FBS or FCS, Boise, UCF, UAB, Akron, Central Michigan etc. (many of whom have pages for these years) Furthermore, some current smaller division teams used to be FBS teams or played in what is now power five conferences W TA&M, U Chicago, Sewanee, Grinnell etc.
  • D) Of course any article that passes GNG should be kept (period). But what about those that are questionable existing(!) such as a 1920s Spring Hill, or 2017 Angelo State? What should be done with those? If keep is not a feasible option I would suggest a merge, but that brings up a question as to what? The program, conference season articles, a list of seasons (1962 Appalachian State Mountaineers football team is an example), a decade list article (Obviously we've had precedent of that with FBS articles)? I'm just throwing those out there. For the sake of consensus and precedence please comment so we can settle this issue. Thoughts on each of these bullets? Calling all editors especially small college/early era enthusiasts @Corkythehornetfan:, @Paulmcdonald:, @MisterCake:- Let's figure this out please.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
UCO2009bluejay, thanks for opening the discussion on this. I was hoping those Angelo State AfDs would bring us to this topic. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Revision of WP:NSEASONS would have to be approved at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports); this is because NSEASONS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). To secure such approval, some participants at that forum will expect proof (through randomized statistical sampling) that the overwhelming majority (> 90% at minimum, some even say > 99%) of such Division II, III, NAIA national champions, conference champions, playoff participants, etc., pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm always open to a discussion of notability. I recommend that if we are going to do a "deep dive" that we create a subpage and give ourselves a set time frame, then invite someone from an uninterested project to come help evaluate consensus. I do recall that in prior discussions everything seemed to come back to WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I am missing what is wrong about Spring Hill. I hadn't heard of them either, but you've got Mike Donahue, Moon Ducote, and Red Harris coaching the teams, and several years where I don't know the coach. One suspects there were other notable Auburn figures who coached there. Regardless, they played FBS football. I'd say they're as notable as a Middle Tennessee State season or whatever, or a Vanderbilt season today. They beat Howard (Samford) in both the 1920s seasons with articles, and Howard was in the SIAA, the equivalent of the SEC. Cake (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @MisterCake: I was not trying to insinuate that there is something wrong with these articles at all, I am an inclusionist when it comes to college football articles. I simply meant to use Spring Hill as an example of season articles that some (as in not me) may want to AfD for one reason or another. Which is the reason that I believe we need to create some guideline, and burden of inclusion. -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I created my first NAIA season article for the 1985 NAIA national co-champion 1985 Hillsdale Chargers football team. It looks like there is sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit late to this conversation (sorry!), but I'm good with whatever y'all decide. I do think we need some sort of guideline for the future. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and will comment when I see the need to. Corky 22:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Technical issue with editing[edit]

For the past few days I've been experiencing a small technical issue with editing. Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Undo function no longer working in edit mode. Has anyone else experienced anything like this? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for infobox NCAA team season[edit]

It only makes sense to have different parameters for offensive and defensive coordinators, but this was not the main cleavage with assistat coaches in the days of iron man football. Several editors seem to be interested in the past, and I assume the infobox is supposed to work just as well for them. In that case, there should be parameters for line coach and backfield coach, and given the forward pass and a few other things, teams could also have an ends coach. There are of course other positions possible which will seem like having "left guard coach" on there, head scout or whatever, but one doesn't see those like one sees the above positions on surveys of old coach's careers. Cake (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

CFD:College football annual team awards[edit]

I have nominated Category:Minnesota Golden Gophers football annual team awards and Category:Washington Huskies football annual team awards, both created by User:UW Dawgs, for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 28#College football annual team awards for the discussion. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry[edit]

Hi all, I have nominated Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry for deletion. The discussion can be seen at the link below.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Auburn football rivalry

Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

New college football rivalry AfDs[edit]

Hello all,

I have nominated the following college football rivalry pages for deletion:

Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (2nd nomination))

Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (2nd nomination))

Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry)

Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Georgia Tech football rivalry)

Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry)

Rice–Texas football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rice–Texas football rivalry)

Penn State–Temple football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penn State–Temple football rivalry)

Please feel free to discuss your opinions on these matters on the specific page's AfD page. Thanks! CalebHughes (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional AfD rivalry articles[edit]

Hello all,

I have nominated two more rivalry articles for deletion:

Auburn–Florida football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Florida football rivalry)

Georgia Tech–Tulane football rivalry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech–Tulane football rivalry)

Please take time to review and share your thoughts on these discussions on the appropriate AfD page. Thanks again. CalebHughes (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have stayed out of these discussions because quite frankly I do not care... however with the mass number of articles going up for deletion, it has me wondering if this is out of retaliation CalebHughes or if this was a consensus from part of a discussion? CalebHughes also can't seem to read up on how to properly mark an article for deletion, so I am asking that they stop until they learn how to. Corky 23:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @CalebHughes: You may want to slow down on these mass nominations. You are nominating some of the most storied rivalries in the history of Southern football. The fact that a rivalry has ceased or slowed down in recent years doesn't change the notability. Remember, notability is not temporary. Cbl62 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Cbl62 They aren't necessarily the most storied, or even rivalries at all. However, you're certainly entitled to those opinions. You're free to share them on the AfD pages. That's why the AfD pages exist, ya know. CalebHughes (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I second that thought Cbl.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cbl62: I have been (silently) watching all of this from the beginning. I jumped into this because, like you said, Caleb is trying to make a point (and it's the wrong point). We need to improve Wikipedia, not the opposite. Corky 00:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cbl62: I think the first two bullet points at WP:POINT might seriously apply here, considering the AfDs on articles he created have been successful, for the most part, and his AfD nominations have been largely unsuccessful. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment for project. I admire CalebHughes' initiative and enthusiasm, which surely can benefit the project in the longterm. And many of our current rivalry articles are poorly sourced/should go through AfD. However, this new editor (120 edits) has created 8 rivalry articles with 2 already deleted, 1 in AfD, and most of the rest tagged re notability issues. Today 9 (malformed) AfD discussions were created without making reference to WP:GNG. Almost all of those articles seem likely to pass GNG. I had already posted on point to User talk:CalebHughes, requesting that they review WP:GNG (policy), follow WP:AFD (process), and generally slow down in context to learning more about wiki while becoming a more proficient editor -which everyone here understands is a process. All of the above has spurred additional feedback on User talk:CalebHughes. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I went through all of User:CalebHughes's AfD nominations and tried to make them follow the standard protocol, though I'm not sure I agree with some of the articles being deleted. Retaliation very well may have been a factor. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is a convenience link to the edit history, re AfDs in particular. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD on small college football coach[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otis Delaporte involves a small college football coach. He was head coach at Southwest Oklahoma for 14 years from 1964 to 1977 and athletic director until 1981. If you have views on this, feel free to comment there. Cbl62 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Another small college football/baseball coach at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Appleby (American football). Cbl62 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

CfD:Apple Cup and Rocky Mountain Showdown[edit]

I have nominated Category:Apple Cup, Category:Apple Cup venues, and Category:Rocky Mountain Showdown for deletion. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 1. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD motive clarifications[edit]

Hello all,

It has come to my attention that some of you are concerned about my motives behind these recent AfDs. As stated in an earlier section on this page in a conversation with Jweiss11 and PCN02WPS in which I listed several rivalry pages I was concerned either weren't actual rivalries or didn't meet WP:NRIVALRY. While I am particularly disappointed that the UTEP-UTSA football rivalry page was deleted (I believe this is sufficient "notability" and enough evidence was presented to support the claim of a rivalry), my motivation behind the AfDs was simply to nominate articles I thought were "iffy" and could warrant deletion. There were no ulterior motives behind the AfDs and no revenge or retaliation.

I would also like to discuss another point. UW Dawgs appears to be going around to every rivalry page and putting in the "notability box". I'm particularly concerned with his putting the box on the Magnolia Bowl page, a rivalry with more than sufficient outside coverage, over 100 meetings between the schools, a trophy exchanged and a specific name given to the rivalry. I can understand a few of the pages he's tagged but there are several others he's tagged that I find questionable. The Magnolia Bowl page is the biggest complaint I have. I would like to know his motivation behind doing all this, as well as why he thinks the Magnolia Bowl isn't a rivalry.

I appreciate having the opportunity to work with y 'all. And I'm sorry if I caused any confusion or misunderstandings. CalebHughes (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your intent, Caleb. Even if there was some question as to notability, the articles you've created reflect good research and writing skills -- abilities that we need to continue improve Wikipedia's coverage of college football topics. If you have questions about a topic's notability (or if you want suggestions for useful areas for development), feel free to post here on this page. The folks here are pretty good about offering guidance. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
As for the tagging of Magnolia Bowl, it is not accurate to say that UW Dawgs appears to be tagging "every rivalry page" for notability. By my count, he's tagged roughly 30, which is about 10% of the rivalry articles. If you disagree with any of these tags, "Help:Maintenance template removal" is a how-to guide outlining the steps to follow. In the case of a notability tag, the most beneficial step you can take is "adding citations to reliable secondary sources" showing that the rivalry at issue does in fact meet WP:GNG standards. Another step is to initiate a discussion with UW Dawgs on the article's talk page. If those things don't work, you can always solicit input here on this page as well. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, I appreciate your response & clarification; your determination will certainly prove valuable to the project. I will also echo what Cbl said, if you need help with anything at all or have any questions, post them here - the users here are very helpful and knowledgeable. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
When tagged,[2] the article had a lone citation which was a primary source. Then, Verizon IPs mysteriously flooded the article with various citations including WP:RS issues.[3][4][5] I stand by my posts above (welcoming you to the CFB project) and on your Talk page (please read WP:GNG, WP:AFD, consider slowing down). UW Dawgs (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

FA/GA program articles?[edit]

I am only asking this out of curiosity, but why so many power five programs start class? Only Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets Maryland Terrapins football Washington & Jefferson Presidents football and West Virginia Mountaineers football are Good Article quality? I will openly admit that I have never made a run at GA/FA status so please don't interpret this as a shot at anyone and certainly not the project. But I would at one point we would have had a campaign to get those listed especially many power five programs. Just for reference here is the current "status" of the power five articles (plus service academies all at start class.)

  • FA: None
  • GA: Georgia Tech, Maryland, West Virginia
  • B: Arizona, Cal, Iowa State, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, USC, Utah
  • C: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Miami (FL), Mississippi State, Minnesota, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Oregon, Penn State, Purdue, South Carolina, Syracuse, Tennessee, TCU, UCLA, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Washington, Washington State, Wisconsin
  • Start: Arizona State, Army, Air Force, Baylor, Colorado, Michigan State, Missouri, Navy, NC State, Northwestern, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Rutgers, Stanford, Wake Forest

So are these (sub FA) ratings kind of arbitrary, (outdated based upon later edits)? What can be done to increase the quality of many power five articles? I am genuinely asking!--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

At a high level, have you referred to the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment#Quality_scale?—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Yes, I am aware of it. I know there is a process for GA and FA. I just have a hard time believing that many power five teams are at C or start class.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
As a project member, you can reassess any that are not accurate.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Future non-conference opponents[edit]


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

Not a fan of such sections. Cbl62 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I think in the past some future season articles have been deleted, so some use this method as a bureaucratic workaround to park information. Personally, I think if there's verifiable info like opponents and recruits of future seasons of prominent programs, just create the future article. It's a waste of time to have to shuttle text around. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team, consensus was to keep articles on the next season. Frankly, I think seasons 2 or more years away are conceptually no different if it's verifiable. WP:CRYSTAL does not preclude this: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Bagumba, I don't think this is much of a solution. Non-conference opponents can be scheduled up to 10 years in advance. For example, Michigan and Texas already have each other on the schedule for 2027, exact date TBD. I don't think we want 2027 seasons articles to be created now or anytime soon. There'd be hardly anything to wrote about them. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly not perfect. What would you propose?—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, either have these sections in the main program articles or don't. But future season articles are not a substitute. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I would propose leaving the "Future non-conference opponents" sections alone. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Why should we keep them if no one is going to update them? All that gets updated is additions of new games/years. Previous years don't get removed. If we're not going to update them fully, we don't need the sections. It's not really important info, anyway, is it? Corky 22:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO, if they're not going to be regularly updated, they'd be better off deleted. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Loyola Marymount Lions football[edit]

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

Unnamed parameters version of CFB schedule template[edit]

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

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

Ostealthy, I concur. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I find it very easy to use and understand and have used it to create more than 600 schedule templates in the past eight months. The time needed to create a table with the unnamed parameters is a fraction of what it takes with the named parameters. But the beauty of the current system is we are using the same template, just with dual syntax. Those who prefer named parameters are free to use that. Those who prefer unnamed parameters can use that. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I will say this: The unnamed parameters works most easily for older seasons where there are fewer columns to juggle, e.g, no TV column, no time column, and often no ranking column. E.g, 1934 Loyola Lions football team. The unnamed parameters gets a bit clunkier when there are so many columns. You can choose whichever works best for you. Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this personalized approach where a handful of users use a template that is unwieldy and un-intuitive for everyone else, just because it fits their workflow better. The template needs to be easy to understand for anyone to edit. Team pages are not personal projects. Ostealthy (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That named parameters are clunky, unintuitive, and unnecessarily time consuming is the majority view across Wikipedia. All of the major American sports use unnamed parameters for their schedule charts. See NFL (2016 New York Jets season#Schedue), MLB (2016 New York Yankees season##Game log), NBA (2015–16 Los Angeles Lakers season#Regular season game log), NHL (2015–16 Detroit Red Wings season#Schedule and results). American college football/basketball is alone in continuing to use the unwieldy named parameters approach. It is the named parameters approach that is the unwieldy and un-intuitive outlier. But many here seem wed to the unnamed parameters and, after extensive debate, we settled in January of this year on a dual syntax compromise that allows both approaches within the same framework. Those who prefer named parameter remain free to use that version. Cbl62 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
As I was involved in this debate some time ago, I will offer my opinion - from the perspective of creating pages, especially older ones (as Cbl said), I would say that unnamed parameters are better. Less pipes, less columns, less clutter. As for more recent pages, specifically 2018 ones, I prefer named parameters. I know I argued strongly for unnamed parameters in the previous discussion, but after editing and adding info to teams' schedules, I can say that named parameters are much easier to deal with, so much so that I have converted Arkansas' 2018 schedule to named parameters. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Unnamed parameters seem to really good for some editors to churn out schedule tables. But they are terrible for the overall maintenance and standardization of the project. We should eliminate the unnamed parameters. The allusions to the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB tables aren't relevant in the way Cbl thinks they are. Those projects are way behind this one in that they are using raw wikitable code to render those schedules. The new schedule templates with named parameters should not take much longer to type out than with unnamed parameters. It should move rather quickly if you copy/paste from one similar article to the next. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
You use the term "churn" as though creating hundreds of high quality, well-formatted schedule tables is a bad thing. There remains an enormous number of articles without schedule tables, and a tool that simplifies and speeds up the process of creating these tables is a good thing ... indeed, a very good thing. Further to PCN's comment, I have no problem with limiting the unnamed parameters to older articles. After all, that's where the backlog of articles without schedule tables is. And that's where I have been plugging away for the last eight months, filling in hundreds of tables. As for Jw's opinion that the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB projects are "way behind" this project, the folks at those projects would beg to differ (as would I). Tellingly, there is no backlog of NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB season articles lacking schedule charts. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
There's no backlog of NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB season articles or schedule tables because, in large part, there are way fewer teams and seasons for those topics, and the sources are far more consolidated and accessible. It's a far more ambitious project to cover every major college football team since this late 1800s in this way than it is to cover the teams of those pro leagues. I didn't mean those projects were way behind generally. I meant that were way behind with respect the implementing standardized forms for standardized structures such as these tables. There's no question that you have created an enormous amount of high quality content on Wikipedia, but many of the schedule tables you've created in recent month are not very well-formatted, aside from the issue of unnamed parameters. We've got a bunch like 1947 Detroit Titans football team that aren't using any templates at all. You also appear to be skipping links to opponents when no specific season article exists. In those cases, Template:Cfb link should be utilized. See 1931 San Francisco Grey Fog football team. I'd rather we moved twice as slow and and did things the best possible way. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I really don't want to get back into attack mode, JW, with you attacking the quality of my contributions. It's really unseemly (and frankly, dickish). I am, in fact, using cfb links, but I do a big group of related articles and then go back and do the cfb links all at once. 1931 San Francisco Grey Fog football team is frankly a pretty solid start and was just started today, for crying out loud. I am in the middle of the west coast Catholic group and have not yet completed it. As for 1947 Detroit Titans football team, that was, as you know, created long before the new templates were rolled out. I have that on my list to fix. Only so much a guy can do in a day. It would be nice to see you actually creating some schedule tables from scratch (haven't seen you doing that in a few years) ... might give you some fresh perspective on the effort involved. As for your suggestion that we do everything "twice as slow", I disagree -- I'd like to see us move "twice as fast" -- we still have a long way to go. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Rankings question[edit]

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

@UCO2009bluejay: I set the poll1firstweek and poll2firstweek to zero instead of having them blank, seemed to fix it.
Yes it did, that was my first time trying to use it. Thank you.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with AfC[edit]

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

@SonofCbl: For accessing your old account, the only way to recover it is if you have/had an email address associated with it. If you are still logged into that account on a different computer, you could go to "preferences" and set an email address, then have a password reminder sent to that address. For the drafts, are you asking for physical help moving them (because you are not auto-confirmed and can't move them) or are you asking how to submit them for review? If the latter, there is a button you can click in the template that will submit the articles for review. Since the assistance desired isn't especially specific to college football (help with your account, general help submitting drafts), you may wish to pose further questions of this type at WP:HELPDESK. --B (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, I had a now-defunct aol email account back in 2007 when I started on Wikipedia. And yes, my temp account is not yet autoconfirmed. SonofCbl (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the bother. My browser refreshed my password. Problem solved! SonofCbl now officially deep-sixed. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)