User talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2010

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jweiss11. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Brandon Graham (American football) which has become a WP:GA in recent months. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Jake Long which has become a WP:GA in recent months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Zoltan Mesko (American football) which has become a WP:GA in recent months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are going way overboard on the Michigan roster articles. I'm not 100% on this, so I'm not about to go on a speedy frenzy, but I posted a thread to the college football talk requesting input on the appropriateness of these articles. I'd appreciate any explanation you could provide. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

—ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to you as well on your diligent work in filling out the template so that there is now at least a stub for all 131 seasons of Michigan football. Hopefully, we (and others) can now work on filling them in. Cbl62 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you've been changing the "Awards and honors" section to "Awards." Since the sections include team captaincy, I think "Awards and honors" is the more accurate heading. Team captaincy is an honor but not an award. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What ever happened with Template_talk:NCAATeamSeason#New_fields?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on your involvement in Northwestern football articles, I thought you might want to expand Zak Kustok.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your help cleaning up the recent UM coaches articles, but it would help if you could allow some space when I'm just starting them. I was still working on the Jed Hughes article and when I had done a substantial rewrite with lots of additional information, I lost everything when I tried to save them and ran into an edit conflict. Unfortunately, I hadn't saved my work before hitting the "save page" button. Ouch. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I really do appreciate the help. Knowing that there's someone else who cares about the subject helps motivate the effort. It's just frustrating when edit conflicts result in losing something. Cbl62 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm done for now with Milan Vooletich if you want to add/change anything. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you know how to tinker with the code. Can you address my Template_talk:NCAATeamSeason#Logo and image query?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is you that tends to do a lot infobox overhauling. Tyrone Wheatley may need to be converted to a coaching box. See the bottom of http://suathletics.syr.edu/news/2010/2/9/FB_0209103322.aspx for details of things that may be included.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled across a new template that I have copied from the OSU article to 2009_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team#vs._Ohio_State. Do you think we should be using that. Do you know how to get all the information for the box?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. feel free to come help out at Talk:2009 Michigan Wolverines football team/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My view on "See also" sections is pretty consistent with the guide. The purposes is to provide a "bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles." It shouldn't be overdone. I hate when I see a "See also" section with more than 2-4 links. But I think it's very helpful to direct the reader to a few articles that are related and likely to be of interest to the reader. It's especially helpful where the linked article is a more fully developed article on a directly related or broader subject/category. In the case of players on the 1901 team, the individual articles can't tell the whole story of that amazing team, and the "see also" tool is a good way to link to the broader discussion. As set forth in the guideline, a "See also" section is "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." That's my view. What's your objection to it? Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now created a 1901 team template that may obviate the need for the "see also" links in this particular case, but this is an issue where we seem to have different views, and so it's likely to recur. I'd like to leave the "see also" sections in there for a couple days to mull it over. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The part of the guide that syncs with my opinion about "See also" sections is: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section..." My feeling is that "See also" sections run counter to the idea of making the encyclopedia as concise, economical, and well-organized as possible. I have seen them turn into excessive laundry lists at times, especially in weaker articles. It seems at if some editors have merely dumped a link to a related topic into the "See also" section, rather than integrating that topic into the article in an appropriate place. That's obviously not the case with the biographical articles on football players that you've been creating, as your work is excellent. But their inclusion detracts from the overall aesthetic of those otherwise strong articles. Moreover, my fear is that the inclusion of these "See also" sections on such articles like yours may also suggest to less disciplined or more casual editors that a "See also" section is a standard, core element of a good article, which in turns may promote the practice of dumping related topics into a laundry list, rather than properly amplifying the article with them. Examples in practice tend to be more useful and more widely adopted than more formal style guides and I hope what we've been building about Michigan football will eventually serve as a paragon of excellence for other college football teams and wider topics beyond. Perhaps, we should solicit input from others about the "See also" sections from WikiProject College football or the larger community. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We agree in part. We share a dislike for the "laundry list" use of "see also" sections in sports biographies. Yet, laundry lists have become common practice in baseball articles. See, e.g., Hank Greenberg#See also, Pete Rose#See also or Cal Ripken#See also. Also, the use of lengthy "see also" sections is fairly common for well-written biographical articles. See Albert Einstein#See also, Henry Ford#See also, Jesus#See also, Moses#See also. There is wisdom in avoiding hard and fast rules on the topic. Thus, the "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" language currently found in the guideline. When people try to impose rigid formating rules, it can be a real turn off for both new and experienced users. For a while, I was writing articles about old silent movies, but I ran into people with rigid ideas about the smallest details. It so turned me off that I stopped writing articles about that topic, just to avoid wasting time on debates over minutiae. I enjoy creating content that I find interesting. If I'm reading an article about a little known (at least to modern readers) athlete from the early 1900s, e.g., Arthur Redner, I would find it helpful to have a brief "See also" section directing me to a related and well-developed article or two or three that I could check out if I was interested in learning more. While a "see also" section cross-referencing every team an athlete played with would be excessive, a reference to an event or team of particular significance to that player is quite helpful. Far from detracting from the article, or making the encyclopedia less "well organized," such a cross-reference enhances the experience IMO. I'm not inclined to "solicit input from others" on which way things "should" be done for precisely the reason set forth above. I just don't see the need for a fixed rule and believe "see also" sections should be left to the discretion (within reason) of individual editors unless there's an edit war or the sections become unwieldy "laundry lists." Back to the specific case of the 1901 Michigan team, the "see also" references are no longer needed now that there's a template, so I'll remove them. Cbl62 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just read your little comment that you placed here.[[1]] A few things; 1) I only made one claim of vandalism so shouldn’t your title really have read “False claim of vandalism”?, 2) You’re a “tenured” editor? Wow, can I read your dissertation?, 3) Don’t you think you’re being maybe just a touch “pot calling the kettle black” by calling me out for disrespect when you post stuff like this? [[2]]?, and 4) While Buckeye fans enjoy “spelling out the four letters of their home state”, what they are really thrilled about is the six game winning streak over the guys who wear those fancy winged helmets! (Seriously though, I think you’re doing a good job on college football articles, keep up the good work!) 138.162.0.43 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed you've recently been doing a lot of work on articles for Florida football coaches. First, let me say that your effort to build out the bodies of these articles is excellent and your citation work is diligent and painstaking. I did want to point out, though, some non-standard usage and formatting you've introduced into the template-based elements of these articles.

Greetings, Jweiss, and thanks for noticing my efforts. Frankly, I was embarrassed by the quality of the University of Florida and Florida Gators articles, so I decided to do something about it last summer. Writing is easy for me; research and fact-finding, however, are time-consuming. So, I prioritized. First, I decided to tackle articles on the university's 16 presidents. Second, once I acquired the necessary knowledge base to re-write the presidents articles, I would then tackle the History of the University of Florida. And, third and finally, I would rewrite the main University of Florida article from start to finish. Fairly ambitious, but the reference resources overlap quite a bit, and so there are economies of scale in research.

I backed into the Gators coaches articles. Some were so badly written, I just couldn't stop myself. Others were in danger of being deleted from lack of editor interest and the absence of meaningful references. So, now I dabble in Gators sports as a welcome relief from weightier articles like Andrew Sledd, Albert A. Murphree and John J. Tigert, which I have largely written from scratch.

In Template:Infobox college coach, the Title, College, and Conference fields are intended to be used to reflect current coaching positions. You've repurposed Title and Conference as a career summary for retired coaches and repurposed College to note undergraduate degree. For retired and deceased coaches, these fields should be blank. Also, in the CoachTeams field, standard practice is to display the school's short name. In many cases, such as on Bob Woodruff (American football), you've listed the school's full name.

 Done I appreciate the need for standard formatting as much as anyone. Pursuant to your comments, I have edited all of the Gators football coach articles for the following fields: (1) "Title"; (2) "College"; (3) "Conference" and (4) "CoachTeams."

In the coaching records tables, you've added ordinal numbers in the ranking fields. The prevailing standard is to simply list the cardinal number. In cases where a team finished with a tied placing in conference, you've noted, e.g. "3rd-Tie", instead of the standard "T–3rd" or "T-3rd".

 Done Given the use of "W" and "L" in the bowl fields and elsewhere, it appears that the use of "T" is consistent. So, I have placed the "T" in front of the standings and rankings, as appropriate. The use of the ordinals, however, does make more sense to me. Apart from the ordinals being closer to the way most folks refer to conference standings and poll rankings, it also sets off the conference standings and poll rankings when they are used in close proximity to scores and win-loss records. Is it strictly required to use cardinal vs. ordinal numbers in the yearly records tables?

In succession boxes, when indicating a range of years, you've put spaces between the start year, the en dash, and the end year. There should be no spaces as "en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items"; see Wikipedia:ENDASH#En dashes.

 Done I have edited all of the Gators coaches succession boxes for consistency on this point.

I've been doing a lot of work the past few months to clean up and improve articles for football coaches across the NCAA and much of this effort has focused on conforming to and enforcing usage and formatting standards in the relevant templates. If you could keep the standards I've mentioned in mind as you continue editing, I would greatly appreciate it. And keep up the good work! Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss, I am not nearly as ambitious as you—the entire NCAA is too big a Wikipedia universe for me to make a difference! It's ecumenical enough for me that many of the bios of Florida's academics and coaches overlap with the histories of other universities and sports programs. I figure if I concentrate my efforts on University of Florida and Gators-related articles, I can bring some critical mass of accumulated knowledge to bare on their improvement.

In any event, perhaps you could help me a little bit, as you appear to have a Big Ten bent to your Wikipedia editing interests. Three of the Gators' early coaches, Alfred L. Buser, William G. Kline and Charlie Bachman, have strong Big Ten connections. Buser was a Wisconsin All-American in 1911, Kline apparently played for Illinois some time before 1919, and Bachman coached Michigan State from 1933 to 1946. Do you know of any good on-line Big Ten resources for the pre-war era?

Thanks, and I look forward to working with you around the Wikipedia college football universe. = ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, you nominated lots of cateogries like category:1881 College football season for deletion, I assume you will change the C to a c. At the moment there are two to several articles in each one. If I delete the cat, you won't know which articles to change, so it is a good idea to change articles first. Otherwise if you promise to fix the mess anyway, you can ask to delete the lot now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Jweiss11. Hope all is well. Just noted your handiwork on the Charley Pell records box. Glad you found the Jacksonville State conference records—I could not. Would be grateful if you could provide a footnote, linked or otherwise, for your source. Drives me crazy when I can't follow the source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Jweiss11. I have a small problem. After our last series of conversations about infobox formatting, I have been uniformly using the short form of university names in the college football coaches infoboxes as well as those of other University of Florida coaches for other sports. Unfortunately, the example infobox at [3] shows the infobox with the full university names displayed. Personally, I have no strong preference either way, but would like to be able to format all Gators coaches pages uniformly. Can we kick this upstairs to the WikiProject College Football for a formal determination? If the policy is the use of the short-form university names, then the example infobox should be changed to reflect current formatting policy. I hate these sorts of formatting issues because they invariably become a huge waste of time as editors make repeated formatting changes to the same article (often mindlessly using a bot or one of the auto-ed scripts). I would greatly appreciate your help as one of the college football project leaders. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, kicking these formatting issues out to WikiProject College Football is a good idea so that we can officially standardize them once and for all. There are lot of problems with that example infobox, e.g. hyphens instead of en dashes, descending instead of ascending chronology, "current" instead of the more apt "present", strange spacing and lack of wiki-links in the Awards field. I think we need to specifically bring in User:CBM as he is the administrator who locked/protected this template in 2008. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding! Once we get the WikiProject College Football people to address these formatting issues by consensus, maybe we can expand the discussion to the WP College Basketball and WP Baseball folks, too. Believe it or not, I've got ten or more of our early Gators football coaches who were also basketball, baseball, track & field and boxing coaches, and, in one case, the tennis coach. It's going to be fun trying to reconcile all of those coaching records in a single infobox, plus trying to standardize the head coaching records boxes across multiple sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like coaching multiple sports was very common before WWII. Over the past couple weeks I've culled through the succession of Alabama and Arkansas football coaches and have just started on Auburn to cleanup or create infoboxes, succession boxes, coaching record tables, etc. You can see what I did for the infobox for Ralph Jordan to reconcile his service as both football and basketball coach. It's not perfect as there are still a few fields that are ambiguous with regard to sport, but I think the coaching career field is about as good as it can get given the current structure of the template. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, check out Hugo Bezdek. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice job adding the team captains to the UM football team infoboxes. My only comment/suggestion is that it may look less cluttered in the later years if you have a single entry for "captains." With three and even four captains in later years, it looks a bit cluttered to have three or four separate entries in the infobox. My suggestion is a single "Captains" section where all three or four names are listed. Cbl62 (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to change to template to display multiple captains on a single line. Note that Template:NCAATeamSeason now has fields for year of service/class for each MVP and captain as well. User:Thumperward is experienced the navbox editor who recently added these new fields. I'll touch base with him about improving the layout of the infobox. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts with and attention to this article.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to it! [4] 74.178.230.17 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch here, I forgot I added a ref to the article! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When viewing Harry W. Ewing (in Internet Explorer v8.0)after your edits of the infobox the years and colleges do not line up. Basically the “(assistant)” moves from next to Nebraska to below Nebraska. When looking at your edits of the article in Firefox v3.5.6 and Safari v.4.0.5 it looks fine.

The version of the article before your edits looks fine in Internet Explorer v8.0, but in Firefox v3.5.6 and Safari v.4.0.5 they years and schools do not line up.

I thinking this may be a flaw in the template but I wanted to check what browser are you using before seeing if someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football could fix this problem. 09er (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

On May 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike Brumbelow, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I noted your edits to Taleb. My mission is to enter into the historical record individuals who have made significant contributions to the economic study of creative industries. This sub-specialty started around mid-20th century so that although most of the key players are still living, they have surpassed retirement age. I would like to give them their due recognition on the Internet before they are gone. Currently their work is not adequately represented on the Internet despite extensive coverage in academic literature (which are not freely accessible via the Internet). Please take a look at my first such article, Arthur De Vany. Allenwlee (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Thanks.

On May 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Gauthier (American football), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MDSanker, Hello. I've noticed you've been working on adding the missing Tennessee Volunteers football teams. Excellent! I want to point out a few items about formatting and content.

1. In scores and records, endashes rather than hypens should be used. Use – for endashes. See Dash for more on this.
2. Watch out for ambiguous wiki-links. For example, link to Southern Conference, not Southern.
3. In the schedule table, write out dates rather than enter them MM/DD/YYYY form.
4. Seasons before 1936, when the AP Poll began, don't need a rank column in the schedule table (use | rank = no in CFB Schedule Start). Early seasons don't need a TV column either. I'm not sure exactly when Tennessee football was first televised, but I'd bet it wasn't until after WWII. May take some research to pin down the exact date.
5. I believe Tennessee moved into Shields-Watkins Field, now Neyland Stadium, and retired 15th and Cumberland Field in 1921.
6. When you create a new page for a college football topic, you should tag its discussion page with {{WikiProject College football|class=Stub}}.

In the past few months I've created articles for every missing Michigan Wolverines football team (see Category:Michigan Wolverines football seasons). Many of them are still stubs, but I've aimed to imbue them with best-in-class formatting and layout. You can refer to them as examples for the points above, etc.

Thanks for your efforts, and let me know if you have questions about the college football stuff. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss11 thank you for trying to help I am trying to get as much Vanderbilt and Tennessee sports updated as I can, It may take me a while to do this. I would like you to stop changing the content to fit what you want to say. If you where a Tennessee alum or even a fan I would not have a problem with it. You seem to be a Michigan person and that seems to be strange that you want to change a Tennessee and Vanderbilt page to fit your way of thinking. The real thing that make your edits bad and me wanting to change them is: the commits you leave on them. As if you are the only person who has a clue. 5–5–0 5–5 –0 5-5-0 A dash is a dash is a dash. All are the same however you do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDSanker (talk) 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I should not have said Vandalizom it was unfair comment. If you like I can start the pages and you can follow with cleanup’s. I will not take it personel I have taken your adivece and I think the pages are looking cleaner. The only problem I had was when you where saying that what you wrote looked better. I see what you where referring to. MDSanker 31 May 2010 (UTC)

....(delink date in lead)

Why? Are leads not supposed to have linked dates? kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, dates are not typically linked in leads nor are they elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An IP user has made a bunch of changes in the above article today. They look a little odd to me, and the IP user does not have a long history. Any idea if they are legit? Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the edits you've been making to my recent articles on college football coaches. For example, in this diff on June 13, you added season links (e.g., changing 1963 to 1963). But in this diff] on June 10, you deleted the same sort of season links that I had previously added (e.g., changing 1988 to 1988). Is there a method to what you are doing? Cbl62 (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your message on my user page, and have brought the topic up at WP:CFB. Thanks for leaving me the message about it. Strikehold (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Jonathan. Just a courtesy note. I noticed that you often contribute to the article regarding George Clark. I spent some time wikifying and copy editing the article yesterday. During this process, I went to research links and citations and discovered that this page was a direct copy and paste from a four-page article printed in the Coffin Corner: Vol. 7, No. 2 (1985). The article, entitled, "Potsy Clark: A Success Story" was written by Bob Carroll. http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/07-02-218.pdf. (The current article includes my copy-edit changes.) I went ahead and manually tagged the article for investigation. I don't want the article deleted, but was not comfortable with overlooking the copyright violation. Cindamuse (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I'll change it back. [: Pengkeu (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• They're all changed back! Pengkeu (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss11--Greetings. Saw you chewing on the "head coaches" category problem. Virtually, all of these "head coach" categories were created by a single editor who has since been banned by administrators from working on categories. He created all sorts of subdivisions within these and other areas, and was in the process of creating head college basketball coach categories when he got banned. These subdivisions might work for major programs wherein virtually all head coaches are notable, but not so much for smaller programs and minor sports. For smaller programs and minor sports, it creates severely underpopulated subcategories. FWIW, I recommend the use of a navbox for head coaches for each program and all-inclusive "coach" categories for head coaches, coordinators and assistants. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for checking/fixing my work. Have a new category in mind, but I'm unsure of the appropriate parent category or the most-appropriate naming convention.

I'm trying to mirror the function of this page List of undefeated Division I football teams as a category for team-season pages, while encompassing all Divisions of college football (as the number of teams is reasonably finite).

I am think of using this category as a parent
Category:College football seasons

With this naming convention
College football undefeated seasons

which mimics the naming structure on this existing Catgory
College football conference champion seasons

Feedback, or direction to an appropriate discussion page, appreciated. Pasadena91 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I have added my comment to yours. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going through the Michigan football record books and adding school records to individual season articles. I have already gone through the Big Ten and NCAA record books and media guides. I will help you get any season to WP:GA that you want to add detailed game summaries to before October 1 (I am competing in the WP:CUP).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know the content has not been optimally arranged. I was trying to work on 18 articles at once and just plopped stuff in as I found it. In most cases the articles really have no body. They just have text and some tables. Any of these that I take time to reformat will certainly read very differently than they do now. Of course, the highest priority seasons are 1997 and 1991. I have added a lot of content that belongs in the articles. They all just need to be massaged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on Collins. The moves are probably correct. Cbl said he might be interested in working on 1997. I think I might take him up on a collaboration on this one. If you want to jump in just watch for us to get started and come join us. As far as the AA pages goes, you are certainly correct in most instances. However, sometimes the Bentley list is generous with 2nd team and less common selector and the player is not even listed on the WP year AA page. Be careful with that change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I just lost a big edit due to an edit conflict. Please don't edit when I'm working on an article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pausing. I'm done for tonight if you wish to take another look at Kodros. Cbl62 (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope my first comment did not seem snippy. I do appreciate your help. It's just frustrating when work gets lost due to 2 people working on an article at the same time. If you see that I'm actively working on an article, just hold back for a while. Because old football player articles are not heavily edited, I don't always use the construction tag to warn other editors. Cbl62 (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw you had a speedy tag on Category:Intercollegiate athletic coaches in the United States, but I couldn't find it in the Speedy Rename section. So I just subsumed it into this new "college athletes" nomination. Hope that's cool.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, Thanks for taking care of that. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious: Is there some reason you swore at me on Category talk:UConn Huskies? I wasn't aware of anything I did to antagonize you here, there, or in the William & Mary discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not antagonized me at all. I wasn't swearing at you so much as I was just simply throwing in a curse word for emphasis and out of frustration. After spending a lot of time and energy on the UConn/Connecticut issue in the past week or so, and parrying with the inanity and identity politicking of one editor in particular, it was a bit trying to have you say that my argument about the structural listings on media sites is misleading. It is not misleading as I've taken good care to specify exactly what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, my apologies if you were offended by the language. I hope there's no hard feelings and I appreciate the good work you've been doing on the categories. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I swear all the time, so don't stop on my account. I see that the word "misleading" was a bad choice on my part; I meant that it could lead to an incorrect conclusion, not that it was your intent to mislead. I would say that it's very difficult to read intent in written text, so you should probably lay off the profanity if you don't want people to think you've gone off the rails. As for the point, I read your links, and my read of the same type of sources you've described makes at least as strong a case for the other direction. Maybe we should find someone who went to Connecticut to weigh in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This template is relying on re-directions for particular season years:
Template:Infobox NCAA football rankings

Could you edit it, such that the <<Prev and Next>> links follow the expected convention of:
1936~1955 => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19xx_NCAA_football_rankings
1956~1972 => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19xx_NCAA_University_Division_football_rankings
1973~1977 => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19xx_NCAA_Division_I_football_rankings
1978~2009/+ => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19%7C20xx_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_rankings

Pasadena91 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried tinkering around with the code, but to no avail. I dropped messages to User:Cardsplayer4life, who created the template, and User:DeFaultRyan, who is pretty adept at this sort of stuff. Hopefully, they can help. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later today. I'm pretty sure I can get it cleaned up the way we want it. DeFaultRyan 19:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch on connecting Lewie Hardage, Oklahoma football coach, to Lewis Hardage, Florida baseball coach and assistant football coach. Always nice to reclaim a lost Gator! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you picked up on that. I was going to drop you a note about Hardage as a figured he'd be a guy you might want to work on. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help cleaning up this article. One issue though is the nickname "William." I realize that CFDW refers to that as a nickname. But I've searched several newspaper databases and find zero references to him as William. He's either referred to by his initials or as "Ray." I did find one article ("Michigan's Ray Courtright Proud of Family and Team", The Christian Science Monitor, 1940-04-26) that discusses Courtright and his son, "William," who was also a successful athlete. I suspect that CFDW has made a mistake on this one, perhaps confusing coverage of his son with coverage of Ray. This is also supported because "William" makes no sense as a "nickname" for someone whose name is Raymond E. or Raymond O. Courtright. Did you find any source other than CFDW supporting "William" as a nickname? Cbl62 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Pittsburg State Gorillas football coach navbox had him listed as William, but I just checked the Pittsburgh State website and he's listed as R.O. Courtright there: http://www.pittstategorillas.com/home/men/football/history/alltime-scores/1910s.dot. I agree that "William" looks dubious. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's likely that whoever created the Gorillas template copied the erroneous info from CFDW. BTW, one or more of the sources I looked at yesterday referred to him as R.E. I'll try digging a little bit to see if we can get a better read on the middle initial. Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a lot more material than I expected on Courtright. He was apparently a popular figure in Nevada, and there are lots of newspaper stories about him from Nevada newspapers. I'll continue to supplement as time permits. It does appear that "O" is the correct middle initial. Still nothing that would support "Michael" as a nickname. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fjbfour, thanks for creating all those Big Ten football standing templates. One little thing: when you transclude them onto articles, be sure not have a blank line after the template code. The blank line causes the article to display extra spacing at the top of the page or section. Thanks again. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. I did not realize that. I will stop doing that going forward. Thanks for letting me know. Incidentally, should I also be adding the "template class" info to the talk pages if I do more of those in the future, or is that only to be done by otherwise authorized users? Fjbfour (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have beefed up 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. It could use some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎. Also, I had trouble finding game details for the Little Brown Jug game. I hope to take this to WP:FAC so if you get a chance this is one of the more important articles that you might be able to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I noticed you had greatly expanded the '97 team article. I just made a bunch of edits, mostly technical stuff and clean-up. I added Coaches' Poll rankings to the schedule and a few of the game times. The times, I must admit, are from personal memory, but hopefully we can verify all of them. Also, I added a scan of my ticket stub for the Notre Dame game. Let me know if you think that works. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been told that ticket stub images may not fall under fair use if they have any copyrighted logos or imagery. I know the block M would be a problem. I am not sure if the winged helmet is as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the help. I think it will still need someone to read the prose and check for other types of errors. When I take this to FAC, do you want to be a co-nominator?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I plan making a full sweep through the article to check the prose and see where I can improve the language. Yeah, would love to be a co-nominator for the FAC. I haven't been involved in that process before. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved your comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1. I will address them in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This was a team effort. When Cbl62 finishes his copy edit and either my Exelon Pavilion or Juwan Howard FA closes, I will nominate this at FAC.

Thank you for uploading File:1997 Notre Dame at Michigan football ticket stub.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, Jweiss11. Sorry I didn't responded sooner. Since your ticket stub includes a small copyright symbol next to the helmet, my best guess would be to use the Template:Non-free logo. Most of the time I usually just upload pictures or screenshots and so this is a more interesting upload than I'm used to. I would check out the image File:Filenes ad on a ticketstub.png because it contains a Red Sox logo on the stub similar in fashion to what you have just uploaded. For some reason your licensing for your upload should fall under the Creative Commons like both the Red Sox stub and my movie stub, but I'm not sure how to do this. If you are able to edit the licensing of your image, try placing cc-by-3.0 between two curly brackets on each side into the edit box for the licensing section. I hope that I helped you in some sort of way and I wish I could tell you exactly what needs to be done, but like yourself, I'm not used to this kind of uploading. Thanks contacting me, I always enjoy a wikipedia challenge. And if you ever need any other help in the future, feel free to contact me again. - TFunk (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please respond here in regards to which license you'd like to release the modified version of File:1997_Notre_Dame_at_Michigan_football_ticket_stub.jpg in which I removed the copyrighted helmet design so that we can get it inserted into 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team, or if you don't like that option we'll have to upload a smaller version of the fair-use image to keep it within policy. I feel a copyright free version of the ticket would be better, since fair-use justification of the ticket is unlikely to pass and it would have to be removed. Anyway please join in the conversation on my talk page so we can get this resolved asap for the peer review. — raekyT 12:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On 11 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcus Ray, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the reaction of Dr. Noskin and his fraternity brothers. One of the things I enjoy most about Wikipedia is hearing from the subject of an article I've written or the subject's family. It's happened maybe 10 times, most recently with Steve Strinko with whom I've exchanged a number of emails. Hopefully, Dr. Noskin didn't feel I dwelled too much on his less glorious moments, like the interceptions record. I try to be balanced. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you created many of the Michigan football season articles. I am currently slogging through the national, conference and eventually team record books. I would kind of like to do the similar statistical thing I did for the football articles that I did for basketball. However, most of them don't exist. Are you interested in creating most of them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you accept this offer, you will probably get DYK credits for many seasons since I will be adding in substantive text for many of the seasons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for thinking of me here, but I don't think I'm going to be able to help out with Michigan basketball anytime soon. I've still got too many college football items to tackle. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I've got to figure out how to rack up some points for the WP:CUP. I was looking for some help on something I will end up doing anyways. I'll be knocking out a lot of them soon. I was just looking for help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

However, I will only be doing the bare essentials on most teams. They will need a lot more work after I put them up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you want to watch any pages they are all here. Many of these will be bluelinks in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you did not notice a lot of these are blue links. You may want to do some rearranging of the content like you did for football. I will not be doing any more teams until after the 15th and maybe not until the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Above, I mentioned an attempt to add some blue to Template:Michigan Wolverines men's basketball teams while scoring DYKs. Well, of the 23 new or newly expanded blue links, I had hoped 17 of them would reach DYK levels. I have succeeded on 12, I think. However, five of them are sort of close and could use some assistance. I have exhausted my resources on 1962–63 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, which I started on 9/4 and 1968–69 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 1969–70 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 1970–71 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and 1971–72 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, which I began working with on 9/5. If you know anything about these teams or how to find anything out about them, assistance would be appreciated. As you know the window is short for finding DYK content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss, I started a conversation over on the WP:College basketball talk page regarding the replacement of all succession boxes with navboxes. Given your previous comments on point, I thought you might want to weigh in—it may be an opportunity to impose greater uniformity on the formatting of coaches articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong in a lot of thing as I was taking the pages as my creation or like it was just mine for everyone to read and not bother with. I was very wrong in that. I did not think about the cut and paste of the AP material. I will watch it in the from now on. So ageain thank you for your help. MDSanker(talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it an improvement to remove {{USCity}}?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it replaces a compound wikilink that includes a wikilink to the less relevant state at large with a single, solid wikilink to the more relevant city. That edit to 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team also brings the formatting of the game boxes in line with the schedule above. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While working on the infobox at 1995–96 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, I ran in to a discrepancy. The following sources have the following records:

20-12 (Big Ten p. 69)

20-12 (Michigan p. 46)

21-11 (NCAA pg. 56)

This leads to a discrepancy between the infobox at the explanation on the "adjusted" link. Do you know why?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss, please take a look at what I've done with the navboxes and succession boxes at the bottom of the Urban Meyer article. I would propose to use this as the pattern for all CFB coach pages:

1. Coach "succession" navboxes expanded to include full name (and common nickname, if applicable) and term of service for each coach;

2. Delete redundant succession boxes;

3. Cluster all navboxes for championships, awards, honors, etc., under an umbrella navbox; and

4. Only expanded coach succession navboxes displayed above/outside of the umbrella navbox.

I think this would go a LONG WAY toward eliminating the bottom-of-the-page graphic clutter created by the ever-expanding proliferation of succession boxes and navboxes for awards, etc. Please let me know what you think. If I can get your backing, I would gladly propose this as a new consensus on the CFB project page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, I like a lot of what you've done, but I have some suggestions and some general reservations. If we went with this strategy, I'd suggest two little changes to what you've laid out. First, the coach "succession" navboxes should be sorted in chronological descending order, i.e. Bowling Green, then Utah, then Florida for Meyer. Second, I'd bring the "Current head football coaches of the Southeastern Conference" nav box above the collapse, but after the coach "succession" navboxes. I think that's relevant enough to keep up there. That would also make the "Championships, awards and honors" label comprehensive.

My general reservations with this are that we'd be breaking parallelism with stuff like Major League Baseball and US politics, e.g. see Connie Mack (baseball) and Dwight D. Eisenhower. I've argued that those topics ought to be instructive for us working on college football because of their general level of comprehensiveness and maturity. Ideally, I'd like to get some editors active on those topics into the mix to work on a pan-Wikipedia strategy for this stuff.

You may have noticed that in the past couple days I've deleted awards from succession boxes for every college football coach I could find that had them. That should simplify things a bit right now at least. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not needed, but I don't know that it's hurting anything. Maybe we could make the parameter default to "off", so the user needs to explicitly say "homecoming=yes", rather than the current other way around. DeFaultRyan 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey I noticed you added the coaches poll to a bowl game for this season. Where did you find them? I have been looking for the pre-bowl Coaches poll rankings for the 1992-1994 seasons so I can produce the Bowl Coalition Poll rankings. Bcspro (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I am pretty sure (not 100% sure) that the Bowl Coalition Poll was (as was the Bowl Alliance) an average of the points from the AP and Coaches Poll prior to the bowl games. If you can produce the points from the coaches poll it should help me out a great deal. Bcspro (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Thanks anyway. Bcspro (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Template Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		My imaginary friend God smiles greatly upon your wonderful contributions.Obamafan70 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Please follow Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please come by and help with the effort.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Kehres deserves a much better article. Pretty remarkable record. Time permitting, I plan on working on it further. I'd forgotten about the list in my sandbox. At one point, I created that list to identify particularly notable coaches who needed articles, kind of a "to do" list that I never finished. Good to hear that you're filling in some of those. Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any information to help fill in the infobox and text regarding offensive and defensive schemes for 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. Looking at the infoboxes for 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2010 Michigan Wolverines football team, it seems we should have similar for this important article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I don't think I have anything solid regarding schemes and strategy for the '97 team, but I did see that criticism in the FA candidate discussion and I agree that's it a good criticism. On defense, I'm pretty sure they used a base 4–3. As for offense, I'm not sure how to best summarize it other than to say it was a pretty conservative, pro set style offense (i.e. QB under center with a base 2 WR, 1 TE, 2 backs formation), as was the case during pretty much the whole Carr era. It might be worth reviewing some of the game video here [5] to look for patterns. As for the schemes listed in the infobox for the Michigan teams in the 00s, I'm not sure how useful or accurate those "Multiple" designations are. The 2006 team, which I think was the first Michigan season article created (circa July 2006), was noted that way. When I created articles for the teams earlier in the decade, I just copied those over from the 2006 article because I was pretty sure the schemes hadn't really changed during the Carr era. But I may have just replicated a questionable piece of data. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to clarify on your talk page -- though my comments directly followed yours, they were not intended to be directed at you. In fact, it was more in reference to the boogeyman claim that you were "biased" as a result of your edit count. Also, just an FYI -- I started an article, Rich Rodriguez Talisman -- you may wish to contribute! Obamafan70 (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe we should start an article about the Ghost of Bo Schembechler. I believe he's still fighting with the Ghost of Woody Hayes. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My contention is that the win streak is really the work of Harris O. Machus, a Michigan State grad and owner of the restaurant where Jimmy Hoffa was last seen.^[1]Obamafan70 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Got your note. I agree there needs for a minimum number of wins for a coach to be included in the list of active coaches approaching 200 wins. My inclusion of Spurrier was probably premature, and so I've removed him for now. I suggest 185 wins as a minimum. In divisions with a post-season tournament, 15 wins is the most wins a coach can have in one season. So, a minimum of 185 would cover all coaches who are within one full season of the 200-win mark. Spurrier will probably hit the 185-win mark before the end of the year, but he's not there yet.

As for including columns for First Year and Last Year, I agree those are handy. If you want to add them, I have no objection.

As for the method for designating active coaches, the best way would be to have a separate column with asterisk, check mark or other designation for active coaches. That would allow sorting active and retired coaches. If a separate column would create too much clutter, the asterisk has the advantage of being searchable. Bolding is not searchable and is therefore not as desirable in my opinion. The only thing with adding another column is a concern that the chart may become too cluttered. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I liked your criticism of the Mike Hart article and am giving heed that I will be using the aforementioned objection in the future when dealing with associated vandals, freelance rabblerousers, and other friendly malcontents. I am giving you credit here first and will attempt to do so in the future when applicable. Obamafan70 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you appreciated it and, by all means, use the argument at will. There's a whole lot of reflexivity inherent in Wikipedia that a strict reading of the oft-quoted policies doesn't really own up to. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments regarding Kevin Donley and his year-by-year season records. I do not have a preference about where in Wiki this information is housed. As you pointed out, this information started as sections on the Kevin Donley article. When the article seemed long to me, I decided to split the season information to what seemed to me to be reasonable hosts, the articles that discuss the football team, if present; or the athletic teams in general, if present; or finally, on the college page itself, if the other two did not exist. I have done a lot of work compiling this information, and it would be TRAGIC if this information were lost due to some other editor's lack of appreciation for the content. I agree that a separate page for each season might be the answer. But I do not have time at present to investigate each season in order to add content beyond the game-by-game results. Therefore, if I were to segregate this information to separate articles, I fear someone would simply delete the pages due to lack of additional content. Can you assure me of a way to keep such a page from being deleted?

Absent such assurance, I would like the game-by-game results to remain where they are for now. I see a logical connection to where they are now housed. Jlhcpa (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered that from 2000 to present you can determine the number of games played according to NCAA records. See http://web1.ncaa.org/football/exec/roster?year=2000&org=418 for example where 2000 in the url determines the year and 418 is associated with Michigan.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the link. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss11, would you be so kind as to opine on the Ryan Mallett article talk page? The aforementioned user seems to think that winning the world's largest crystal football award is "spam". References are provided; perhaps you could weigh-in. I'm just seeking some independent counsel and voice on this to build consensus and so as to prevent a possible spat. Regards,Obamafan70 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for opining on the associated talk page. I've also started a thread under the college football wikiproject portal, which should very much help in resolving the issue. Obamafan70 (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page somewhere.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page somewhere.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a peek at User:Paulmcdonald/Victor Santa Cruz. I haven't incorporated the changes in the coach template box yet, but I wanted you to look at progress so far.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue noted at T:TDYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and the heads up about the character minimum. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jweiss, I saw your recent edit to the new "Florida Gators head football coaches" navbox, and I have no objection to only using the most commonly used "full name" (i.e. first name/nickname and last name) of the coaches. I hope you still have no objection to using the common full name and years of service. I spent some time getting the college basketball group on board with this, and I have been gradually "upgrading" all of the college baseball, basketball and football coach navboxes on the Florida Gators coach articles so I may then delete the redundant succession boxes. Please confirm that you are still on board with this, because I am hopeful that this will become the unquestioned college football project standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to jump in as an uninvited guest to the conversation... Personally I don't care if we have first name/last name/dates/whatever in the coach navboxes, I only care that they are the same and uniform across all teams. The standard that the WP:CFB has used is to have just last names and no dates, as you can see from exploring the Master Team Table. While I would rather we go with just the last name for ease of use and reading and avoidance of clutter, I'm more interested in making sure that they are all similar in layout. We may need to move the discussion to the talk page at the college football project if you feel strongly enough about making a change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Paul, this evolved from a desire to ditch the redundant succession boxes when they embody nearly the same information as the navboxes. Like you, my biggest concern is uniformity, and I have a pack full of Florida Gators coach articles with a mixed bag of formatting, including a number of coaches who were football, basketball and baseball coaches; heck, in one instance, I have a football coach who was also the tennis and track & field coach. I have a university president (John Tigert) who coached the Kentucky Wildcats football team, basketball team and women's basketball team, and the article had six tiers of redundant succession boxes that largely duplicated the content and purpose of the navboxes. My goal is to have uniform navboxes, with recognizable names and terms of service, and thereby eliminate any need for the old succession boxes that contribute to the grotesque graphic clutter at the bottom of so many bios. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, indeed this all part of larger effort to implement a final solution for succession and nav boxes. I think one thing we can throw out from that discussion is the need for full/nicknames in either structure. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

JW, just to clarify, your recently revised version of the Florida Gators head football coaches navbox is acceptable to you, right? In other words, and by way of example, we would use "Bob Woodruff (1950–1959)," not "G. Robert 'Bob' Woodruff (1950–1959)," and not just the piped links of only the coaches' last names like "Woodruff?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus is to systematically go with the "Bob Woodruff (1950–1959)" form across the college football landscape, that's fine by me. "G. Robert 'Bob' Woodruff" is just too much info for a nav box and obscures the quick identify-ability of common names. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Having compared your revised version of the Florida Gators coaches navbox to the last one I edited, I tend to agree. My original argument for including first name (or the more common nickname) and years of service was the ability to quickly identify the coaches by their names and eras. My thought was that some WP users would recognize the name, and other WP users would want to see who the Wolverines coach was in 1955. Your revised version is better for quick reading, and still incorporates all of the information currently embedded in the succession boxes and thus allowing us to delete the damn succession boxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that there is a standard on these articles. I had just copy-and-pasted the 2007 stuff over. I'll follow the standard. OCNative (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

JW, I need a disinterested second opinion regarding college athlete notability. I have been working for several months to clean up the WP bios of former Florida Gators athletes, including about 230 former Florida Gators football players. The vast majority of these former Gators clearly satisfy one or more of the notability criteria for WP inclusion, while approximately 10 to 20 of the football bios fall in what I perceive to be a "gray area of notability." And while my principal motivation is improving these articles so they reflect a common standard of formatting and at least some minimum common standard of content, I really don't want to spend a lot of time on articles that may (and perhaps should) be subject to a successful AfD. A archetypical example of this is the Dexter Daniels article. Daniels was an SEC first-teamer, but received no All-America honors or other SEC or national football awards, and played in a total of four NFL games in a single season, none as a starter. His professional career was brief and otherwise forgettable, and affords no interesting content to include in the article. Is this really the sort of college sports article we want to include in WP, based on some sort of "he played in one professional game" minimum notability standard? Please feel free to respond at your leisure. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniels played in the NFL, so he's notable for sure. I know there are a lot of Michigan football bio articles out there for guys who didn't even play professionally like Stan Noskin. Noskin started for Michigan at QB, but I don't think he ever made an all-Big Ten team. Incidentally, he is a good friend and fraternity brother from U of Michigan with the father of one of my best friends from high school. User:Cbl62, who authored that the Noskin article and slews of others, is probably a good person to loop in regarding gray notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject College Football for a Signpost article to be published next month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for cleaning up after me when I walked through the Southern Oregon coaches...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fjbfour, I've listed the nav boxes for the 24 non-nat'l championship Nebraska teams for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. I think this is the way to handle it. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had forgotten about that discussion already. I will go add my $0.02 to support their deletion. Appreciate the help, and your feedback, as always. Fjbfour (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It does need work. For now, I've tried to at least add a number of the feature stories that have been published about him to reduce the likelihood of a notability challenge. 03:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On 10 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Stagg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that brothers Amos Jr. and Paul Stagg both played quarterback for their father Amos Alonzo Stagg at the University of Chicago, and later led teams against each other as college coaches themselves? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On 10 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amos Alonzo Stagg, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that brothers Amos Jr. and Paul Stagg both played quarterback for their father Amos Alonzo Stagg at the University of Chicago, and later led teams against each other as college coaches themselves? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was glad to help. I saw it sort of languishing there and wanted to make sure it wasn't overlooked. Interesting story about the sons. Cbl62 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on whipping the 1918 Michigan Wolverines football team article into shape. Think I'm done for now. If you have suggestions, go ahead and make any changes you think appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I haven't been around wikipedia for very long so I'm not sure why you removed category: Horizon League from several HL pages, including Horizon League Men's Basketball Tournament, 2011 Horizon League Men's Basketball Tournament, and Template:HorizonLeagueBB. I'm afraid I may be using categories incorrectly or something. If you could let me know why this category was removed from these pages, I'd appreciate it. City boy77 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Could you explain this edit to me? I mean, U of I is a member of the Big Ten. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, on the film Necessary Roughness: we had a discussion at the CFB project a while back and came to the conclusion that fictional films were outside the scope... I pulled the tag, but then saw that you put it on and wanted to get back to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the heads up. I was a little hesitant on that tag. I figured maybe the NCAA violations stuff made the film relevant enough to be included in the project's scope, but sticking to non-fiction films sounds good to me. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think a separate article is necessary? There isn't very much content. Grsz 11 18:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks for building all the football stuff at IUP Crimson Hawks. I see you have been the main editor there. Indeed I do think IUP Crimson Hawks football needs its own article. Not much content? It's more than 40K, well cited, with its own infobox! It's in better shape and more substantive than a lot of articles for Division I football teams. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football would ideally like to have a good main article for every college football team. As of yet, coverage is spotty outside of Division I FBS, but we've got a Good Article for Division III Washington & Jefferson Presidents football. What we could use now at IUP Crimson Hawks is a little intro for the football section. A paragraph or two should probably suffice. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this before and disagree. Not much to be gained from revisiting it. On articles you create, I will defer to you. On articles I create, I suggest you defer to me. Sound OK? Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how you "properly" update the list of wins. No sourcing information is provided relating to the various coach's W-L-T shown in the total. Without some standard methodology, how are multiple editors able to participate in keeping this schedule current? I chose to sync with the individual coach narrations exactly because of the fact that it was a consistent approach that could be followed by multiple editors. As a season progresses, I presume somebody has enough interest to keep the individual coaching records updated. If those pages get outdated, then the master table will be outdated, agreed. But as soon as the coaching page gets corrected/updated, that data is then available for the 200 wins table. If issues exist, such as the one you pointed out for Mack Brown, then I believe that should become a project for someone to resolve. (What you seem to be telling me is that the 200 wins table has better information than some of the coach's biographies? That seems wierd to accept such a premise.) I don't know how Wiki can be relied upon if you are telling me two different pages can have two different presentations. It seemed logical to me to go to the separate coaching pages and rely on them, with an implied acceptance of the information on those pages. If those pages are wrong, they need to be fixed. As another example, a handful of coaches have biographies that do not include tables of their coaching career, year by year. Such a table should be created so that all coaches have their records as part of their biographies. I am considering taking on that project so that all coaches have a W-L-T table as part of their biographies.

Having said all the above, how do you suggest that multiple people can be involved in the updating process for this page? I am willing to do it from time to time, though I am not committed to taking it over exclusively. As you have already seen, I have a specific interest in a select group of coaches on the list. But I do not yet understand a process that allows for multiple people to do the updating. It seems like the update process needs to be known and simpler. Jlhcpa (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now finished drafting the William Wilson Talcott article. It's one of the most fascinating stories I've encountered in researching Michigan football history. The makings of a great movie. If you have the time to look it over for a copy edit, feel free. Cbl62 (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also recently added career records for Dennis Douds and Bob Ford (American football). Feel free to comment and/or make changes if you find any improvements. Jlhcpa (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On a few pages, I added box scores and game summaries using the American football templates and then were removed by other users for the sake of format. Why? Comedian1018 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jweiss11, since you recently improved this template, I had a request. In the "Current position" section, can you add another conditional field for pro/non-college positions? Chris Scelfo, former Tulane HC and current Falcons TE coach, is what made me notice this—i.e., he's still most notable as a college coach, but is currently a pro positional coach. Can you add a field that says "Organization" or "Team", something along those lines? Thanks! Strikehold (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I figured out how to add this myself. Let me know if there are any issues with the change. Strikehold (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Strikehold, I reverted your edits and made some tweaks to the template documentation. The existing College field can serve to display current teams at any level (high school, college, pro), so there's no real need have that new ProTeam field that you added. Ideally, we should rename the College field "CurrentTeam". Jweiss11 (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Please see comments at: Talk:Lew Carpenter. Thank you for the input. I think the Lew Carpenter article is heading in the right direction. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. My obsession can end soon...though I have a couple of things I will add. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I created the 2011 season page for Michigan, but noticed a reoccurring problem with that page and other 2011 pages (Stanford and Indiana) in relation to the 2010 infoboxes. While the 2011 pages will link back to the 2010 seasons and forward to the 2012 seasons, the 2010 boxes refuse to link forward to the 2011 seasons, even if the page has already been created. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks. SCS100 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will be more careful in the future.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Harold 'Red' Blair.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you deal mostly in college football but is there a template similiar to the college football depth chart for pro football teams?

Comedian1018 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

JW, you've hit another home run with the public domain/fair use photos you have been adding to the college coach articles. Do you happen to know the date and source for the Charlie Bachman photo? I would like to add a meaningful caption. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

DL, thanks for the praise. I pulled the Bachman photo from his College Football Hall of Fame profile. I've been trying to make decent guesses at dates for these photos based on apparent age and any revealing details. Bachman has an S on his t-shirt peeking through his jacket, which, combined with his 40s-ish appearance, makes me think this was taken during his tenure at Michigan State. Maybe that's an MSU hiding under there? He looks a little too old for this to be from his run at KSU. It might be worth emailing the people at the College Football Hall of Fame to see if they have more details. However, a few months ago, I emailed Kent Stephens, the "Museum Curator & Historian" (see http://www.collegefootball.org/contact.php) about an error on one of their profiles and never got a response, nor did they simply fix the mistake. In contrast, I've started up a steady correspondence with David DeLassus at the College Football Data Warehouse to help him debug his site. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As an example: I have just cleaned up most pages that linked to the 2010 NAIA Football Championship Series page. What's left is userpage links. What else needs to be done in order to recommend that this page be deleted? Can I request that action now, or is there some Wiki policy that says the page must exist forever with its REDIRECT to the correct page? I want to understand the way to approach this as the other redirects get cleaned up for the other pages. I owuld like them deleted as soon as the necessary cleanup has occurred. Thanks. Jlhcpa (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I'm not sure what I want the focus of these articles to be. I started out wanting to present the entire tournament series, so the reference to "Series" was appropriate. Then, in the end, I decided to add an infobox that highlighted the results of the championship game. Perhaps this infobox is better placed on a separate article that discusses just the championship game; but I am including them both since articles presently don't exist for either the series or the championship game. In order for the infobox annual links to work, I had to retitle each article to refer to "NAIA Football National Championship". In the end, I suppose the infobox should go away from this article, and the article title should refer to "Series". I'll hold off on making any major changes again until we can reach agreement/common understanding about what is being presented and where/how it best should be presented. Jlhcpa (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone started, Michael Shaw (American football). I am wondering if we should WP:CSD it or develop it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Appreciate it.--SportsMaster (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)