Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 College Football All-America Team/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 08:14, 30 June 2010 [1].
2009 College Football All-America Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is among the finest that WP has to offer in terms of All-America Teams. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mm40 (talk). Some quick points:
Where is the list itself sourced to? Is there a general reference the lists all the players?- I have moved the external refs to inline in the columns of the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Notes" column in the first table can be taken out- Before doing so, I wanted feedback on three options of ways to use the column
- See 1991 College Baseball All-America Team where it is used for other years in which the player was an All-American, and major professional success
- See 2006 high school boys basketball All-Americans where additional columns describe the draft year.
- I could also use the column to highlight best player and/or individual awards included at {{College Football Awards}}.
- We could delete it.
- I think whatever we do in this featured list will become standard for future College Football All-America lists going forward so we should figure out what is most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about uses in other articles (I don't care either way), but if the column is empty, there's no purpose in having it. Either put something in it or remove it. Mm40 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about uses in other articles (I don't care either way), but if the column is empty, there's no purpose in having it. Either put something in it or remove it. Mm40 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before doing so, I wanted feedback on three options of ways to use the column
TSN, Pro Football Weekly, and Sports Illustrated should be italicized throughout the article- I italicized both full spellings and abbreviations of these three throughout (and College Football News).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
emdashes (—) for blank cells are generally centered- Is there a global table formatting command to do this or do I have to do it cell by cell?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do this using AWB. Mm40 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a global table formatting command to do this or do I have to do it cell by cell?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title of reference 3 should be in quotes- I am using the same template as ref 2, but it doesn't seem to be working the same way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in a query at the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those guys pointed me in the right direction and it is now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in a query at the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am using the same template as ref 2, but it doesn't seem to be working the same way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need in endash in reference 5- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright symbols in titles (reference 6) are discouraged (see here). Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments -
(undent) Good. A couple of the rows are long, but that can't really be helped. Awards should be cited, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – After the resolution of the many comments above, I feel this has now reached FL-quality. A couple of reference formatting issues were left, but I polished them off myself to get this process moving. The one remaining issue I just noticed is that there is a small blank column between the first and second Academic All-America teams, but I have a feeling that is related to the request below, and will be taken care of when a plan is worked out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issue by nominator, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Help request Can someone help me add first team and second team labels to the table in the Academic All-American section while retaining current sortability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment When the Consensus All-American list is updated on the NCAA page (last years list), how should that be incorporated here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two feasible options. The first is to add a column for the Consensus All-Americans, using the NCAA website as the source. However, this might make the table excessively wide; it's pushing towards the right edge of my widescreen monitor as is. With that in mind I would suggest highlighting the Consensus All-Americans with a color and symbol; the NCAA link can be incorporated as a general reference. If this is done, just make sure that the key is updated to show what the color and symbol mean. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Now concerned over the vast number of red links in the second table... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could nolink them or we could wait a year or two since some many of these guys are underclassmen who may become notable in the next few years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the strategy I would expect is that we link those that are notable now, whether they have an article or not, and nolink the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My thinking would be that this might be O.K., for the 2nd table, but the redlinks should remain for the first table I think. The two redlinks in the main table are a sophomore and a freshman. These guys are likely surefire notable people. I am going to spend a day or two looking more in depth at who the guys are in table to before agreeing to nolink them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 15 underclassmen on the list of Academic All-Americans. Many of these may be notable in the coming years. Are you sure I should nolink these guys?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are non-notable now, I see no reason to link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are non-notable now, I see no reason to link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 15 underclassmen on the list of Academic All-Americans. Many of these may be notable in the coming years. Are you sure I should nolink these guys?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My thinking would be that this might be O.K., for the 2nd table, but the redlinks should remain for the first table I think. The two redlinks in the main table are a sophomore and a freshman. These guys are likely surefire notable people. I am going to spend a day or two looking more in depth at who the guys are in table to before agreeing to nolink them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the strategy I would expect is that we link those that are notable now, whether they have an article or not, and nolink the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could nolink them or we could wait a year or two since some many of these guys are underclassmen who may become notable in the next few years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment: Aside from TRM's concerns above, I have one question: What makes the following reliable sources?
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support. WereWolf (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.