Jump to content

Talk:National Signing Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rating

[edit]

Rated mid since it has general applicability, occurs cyclic and likely to be linked from other articles. --MECUtalk 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a sociology major copied and pasted an essay into this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.148.110 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like a poorly written middle school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.127.251 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst article on all of Wikipedia. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.211.43 (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSD is definitely important enough to warrant an article, but this needs a great deal of work. I couldn't get past the opening paragraph, it's absurdly overblown and factually incorrect (it is only the first day to sign a National Letter of Intent in Football and Men's and Women's Soccer)Almanley (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article deserves more attention as this is a HUGE day in college sports. In relation to the money generated by college sports, I believe that this day is largely influential. (SmoothGenau (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:National Signing Day/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

first off, why the heck is this article just about football, there is a national signing day for all sports. Also, does this seem to anyone else appear to be a modified essay on the subject, not a encyclopedia article?

Last edited at 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


National Signing DayNational signing day – Not consistently capped in sources, so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you still take the undue word "consistently" as meaning "always", 100%? It doesn't mean what you think it does, especially in this context. This one comes in at 4-1 in favor of uppercasing, so please withdraw the nomination and let's not prove the saying "A foolish consistency..." as applying to Wikipedians and Wikipedia decisions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not 100%. The data show caps in the minority until 2005, and gradually increasing to near 80% (4-to-1 as you say) over the 15 years during which WP had it capped. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, uppercasing is over 80%. Why we'd turn that on its head and lowercase now is almost beyond my capacity to stretch a point. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It amazes me how badly Dicklyon is grasping at straws to try to make his case believable. Both the capital/lowercase versions gained a lot of usage around the mid-2000s, likely due to increased media coverage of the day by national media. However, it is very consistently capitalized, as shown by the capital version consistently having about 80% of the hits for at least the better part of the last decade available. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The average over the last decade of stats is more like 65%. And don't forget that that includes title-case contexts such as headings and such, and places defining the acronym NSD, which are typically capped. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A consistent 4:1 ratio, evidenced by the graph provided, equals 80%. But even if it was just 65%, which it is not, that would be a substantial majority to justify the capitalized title. Frank Anchor 01:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.