Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27

[edit]

Template:TAFI

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TAFI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unless this template can be made invisible to readers it should be deleted. Readers are not interested in editing (and they are our biggest "customers") and no amount of cajoling seems to make them want to edit. The template is too imposing and achieves too little for the vast majority of article visitors. Also, it is yet another imposing banner with which we assault our readership. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Do you have a link? Was it recently? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a months in the making, VPR discussions within the last couple. Starting at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI and continuing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI. There's also a bunch over at Talk:Main Page. Ryan Vesey 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a ghastly misuse of the mbox system, but if there's a broad consensus for it then so be it. This is the first I've heard of it at all, and I expect that'll be the case for a great many editors, so I expect to see it back here in future for a more thorough discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the main template used at articles selected as TAFI so I don't think this template should be deleted.--Ushau97 talk contribs 08:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It is not a misuse. It has been discussed. Just not hearing about it is not an issue. I don't expect it back as there has been a thorough discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's a misuse: we don't use amboxes for this purpose anywhere else on mainspace. A discussion in some Village Pump archive is certainly not indicative of broad community consensus. Lastly, some of y'all really want to start reading WP:SK, because it's difficult to take arguments seriously when they're prefaced by bold words indicating that the editor in question has basic gaps in policy knowledge. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have concerns with this template, and this project appearing on the main page, the concerns should be voiced at Wikipedia talk:Main page. You really can't complain if you're unaware of a project that was discussed at the village pump, it can't be spread much wider. Ryan Vesey 14:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please comment on the content and not the contributer Chris. This is an appropriate speedy keep request per that page. (Application 2 and possibly 2.A.) I tend to find your argument less than accurate and very difficlut to take serious myself based on the fact that you seem to question a basic understanding of the editors and not at all demonstrating your own concerns per policy. You leave a link with no context to how anyone has erred as they have not. So far no one has requested deletion so the Speedy Keep is appropriate. Please demontrate how the this is a misuse of the ambox system which clearly states it is for message boxes on articles. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually you can spread much wider. Listing WP:CENT for example. This was done a least for including mention of TAFI on the main page, although somewhat belatedly and it is much more important then simply discussing at VP. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:GoExpress

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoExpress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Go!Express branding is defunct, and only two airlines ever operated service under this name, so I don't feel its necessary to have a navbox for it. Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Auto italic title 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto italic title 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Auto italic title 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This should be handled by a flag passed to {{auto italic title}}, not a completely forked template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1984 Washington football

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1984 Washington football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

General practice is to have navboxes for specific yearly college sports teams only in the event that they won a major national championship. The 1984 Washington Huskies football team was recognized as national champ by Berryman (QPRS), Football News, and National Championship Foundation, each something of a minor honor per College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UW Dawgs, this is a very good question. Unfortunately, many of the prevailing, accepted "standards" in the WikiProject College football realm have not be clearly written down. Rather, they tend to be generally known by the project's longtime regulars based on past discussions on the project talk page and elsewhere. This is something that should be fixed so that newcomers and those less familiar with the project can be brought up to speed and have better access to revising these standards, if need be. The best rule of thumb for the college football national championship navboxes is that those and only those for teams listed at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#College Football Data Warehouse recognized national champions are generally supported. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect the research of CFDW in evaluating the selections of the selectors (a "superselector" if you will, similar to the NCAA Official Records Book), I would be cautious about suggesting that they should be used as the sole criteria for certifying the legitimacy of championships and thus the existence or non-existence of relevant navboxes. The best way to avoid WP:POV and WP:OR (and CFDW is but one point of view competing with multiple others) is to go by the claims of the schools themselves, per my discussion below, although in the case of UW I do not believe the school claims the 1984 and 1990 championships in an official capacity. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CP, if it were only College Football Data Warehouse, I might be inclined to agree with you, but it's not. The NCAA Records Book draws the distinction between national championship selections (see page 71) and consensus national championships (see page 78), and singles out the AP Poll championships for special acknowledgment (see page 78). The overwhelming majority of major sports media do not recognize these minor "championship" selectors in any significant way; the concept of a "consensus national championship" in college football is understood to be based on being voted number one in the last poll of the two major media polls, the Associated Press and Coaches Poll. Invariably, a majority of the minor selectors follow the two major media polls. All parties to this discussion know this. The Huskies' 1990 "championship" is not only a non-consensus championship, this "claim" is based solely on a single selection by FACT, one guy's computer assisted statistical analysis. We all know this. To equate a MNC selection by this minor selector with the Associated Press Poll or Coaches Poll is egalitarianism and political correctness run amok. Bottom line: not all MNC selections/claims are equal, not all selections/claims receive recognition in the major media per the WP:GNG notability guidelines, and there is no reason why WP:CFB should treat these minor MNC claims/selections as if they were of equal weight. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to take your statement sentence by sentence to cover them appropriately. Please realize that while I am actually personally sympathetic to many of your points, I feel compelled to point out my issues with your arguments due to a general weariness for the interjection of POV into the issue of MNC legitimacy which is a constant battle in maintaining the college football MNC article. At the end, I will actually provide the reasoning that I believe argues for your POV. I actually don't disagree with your particular POV on this topic, but editors must refrain from having a POV and OR so that they can provide encyclopedic information per Wikipedia policy. These Wikipedia policies hold whether or not we believe that "we all know" something about the topic. In this and other comments on this page, I am attempting to remain neutral.
  • In your first point, you are drawing conclusions that simply don't exist in the Records Book. The fact that the NCAA Official Records Book draws distinctions between multiple points of view (for example, "major" selectors and their selections versus the NCAA's separate proprietary "consensus" definition) but it does not imply that the NCAA endorses or certifies the POV about the "consensus" selections as being more legitimate over their own list of selections from "major" selectors (not that the NCAA would be an official arbiter although it is an important source). It is also particularly important to point out that no such statements of the relative legitimacy of one listed selection over another is stated anywhere in the text of the Records Book. That may seem like nitpicking, but that distinction (and those that follow) is important because it is the same reasoning used for the multiple listings in the MNC article itself in order for it to pass WP:POV.
  • You point that about whether or not any particular sports media recognizes these selectors has no official bearing on their historical legitimacy since there is no one official selector or arbiter. Such assumptions also fail to account for the sports media's inherent internal conflicts and bias in operating their own polls and awarding their own National Championship selections (e.g. AP, UPI, ESPN, USAToday, NYTimes). That said, your prior statements would indicate that you'd agree that other third party media typically focuses solely on AP and Coaches Poll selections, but this still contrasts the Official NCAA Records Book's separate listings of multiple "major" selectors and multiple "consensus" selectors, as well as CFDW separate "recognized" and "total" lists of championship selections, and certainly some universities' own recognition of national championships. Therefore, it risks problematic injections of POV to definitively state what an "overwhelming majority" recognize as legitimate (although this objection is admittedly most valid for pre-1950/pre-dual poll era selections).
  • Your point about what is "understood" about "consensus" selections is incorrect. The NCAA has defined "consensus" as a team having been selected by only one of four different selectors, two of which are not the media polls. Other than the NCAA's definition of "consensus", no other agreed upon definition exists in regards to college football championships. Your implied definition of "consensus" does not match that of the NCAA's nor Webster's dictionary definition (1a. unanimity 1b. most 2. group solidarity) [1] for many of the years.
  • Your point that a majority of selectors duplicate the selections of the AP and Coches' polls is not true in many years since 1950, although this notion is more true in later years.
  • It is important to state that your continued use of the word "minor" for selectors is your own definition and contradicts the Official NCAA Records Book which lists all of these under discussion as "major". Your use of "minor" seems to be a definitive example of the interjection of your own POV, which should be avoided.
  • There seems to be a conflation of the terms "selection" and "claim". A claim, by definition, is a university's self-recognition of having received what it views as a legitimate selection. How it arrives at that determination is unique for each university and the status of one claim has no relevance to another. Media typically only reports its own or other third party selector's selections. Neither media nor organizations (eg NCAA) have any bearing on what a school claims. Each selector, university, media entity, and organization is independent and not beholden to any other. Hence the mess that is college football "national championships".
  • Your concluding statement, " FACT, one guy's computer assisted statistical analysis", shows an inherent bias (and thus POV) against this selector; a selector that is otherwise verifiably listed as "major" by the NCAA Official Records Book. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to independently judge the legitimacy of these selections from verifiable sources. Further, stating "we all know this" is not a valid procedure for citing information on Wikipedia. Your disdain (and I don't disagree with your sentiments necessarily) of perceived "egalitarianism" and "political correctness" do not trump major Wikipedia policies of POV, Verifiability, and OR. This is just as true for college football as it is for articles on politicians or any other controversial subjects that must present all sourced and verifiable points of view. Further, Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:GNG) are used "to decide whether a topic can have its own article", not what information should be included, and you are citing them out of context here as a substitute for WP:Source and perhaps WP:UNDUE.
  • Now, let me turn this on its head. Despite all of the above points, WP:UNDUE probably speaks to this issue more than any other.

    "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

    Thus, it could be interpreted that FACT's 1990 selection of the Huskies is a minority view, and that this is demonstrated not just by the lack of media attention given to it relative to the AP and Coaches' polls, but perhaps more importantly, due to the fact that it is not given as equal weight in the Official Records Book (compared to the selections of the AP, Coaches, NFF, and NWAA which can be thought of to receive more attention by virtue of them being repeated in the "Consensus" sections) or at CFDW. This does not contradict the fact that the Records Book does not speak directly to the legitimacy or importance of one selection over the other as stated above (a very important point to remember), but it may allow for the application of WP:UNDUE in this case.
  • To actually return the topic of these two navboxes, all of the above interesting discussion in the hypothetical, but is probably moot because Washington doesn't make a legitimate, distinctive claim on 1984 and 1990 in the first place. That said, I suggest that any construction a WikiProject guideline would have to be based on WP:UNDUE. However, I continue to be weary that the CFB WikiProject or Wikipedia itself would take on the role of being yet another selector of selectors (similar to the NCAA Records Book or CFBDW) or even a selector of selectors of selectors. By attempting to certify which selections are most legitimate for the purposes of allowing the existence of a navbox (which no policy or guideline actually prevents), this comes dangerously close to interjecting a POV as well as undermining claims of individual schools, even if such action is based on an interpretation of UNDUE. Whether this is the intent of such an action or not, being a certifier of MNC selector legitimacy is the indirect result of Wikipedia stating that the 1951 Michigan State Football Team cannot have a national championship navbox. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CP, I think you are importing (intentionally or unintentionally) your perceptions of other WP:CFB disputes into this TfD discussion. Let me cut through the details and sum up my argument for you: the Huskies' 1990 "championship" fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines because the subject lacks in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Please review the navbox guidelines at WP:NAVBOX; among other things, every navbox should be supported by a stand-alone article or list on the specific topic of the navbox. In order to have a stand-alone article or list, the subject must satisfy the notability guidelines. I challenge you to find non-trivial mentions of the Huskies' 1990 FACT-awarded "championship" in major media sources from 1990-91; Google News Archive awaits. Now compare what you find to the mainstream coverage of the final AP Poll and Coaches Poll from January 1991. Casting this argument in terms of some overweening compulsion by several WP:CFB editors to control the recognition of CFB championship selections is misguided; WP:CFB and Wikipedia in general are not acting as a "super selector"; we are merely recognizing reality and majority media practice. Books are written about consensus national championship teams in college football; no one writes books about CFB teams that receive minor MNC selections by FACT.
As for citing the NCAA Records Book as a definitive authority regarding CFB MNCs, we all do so at our own risk. In numerous publications, the NCAA acknowledges that it has no role in the official selection or recognition of Division I FBS football championships. It merely publishes the results of the various MNC selectors, and the record book's current use of the "major selectors" and "consensus national championships" terminology is of recent vintage and not widely accepted or even acknowledged by the mainstream sports media. The NCAA Records Book has no official standing regarding CFB MNCs, and it merely serves as one source among many others. A "consensus national championship" has long been understood to be one awarded by the two major media polls. I suspect you already know this, but you're casting this TfD as another exchange in your running argument with one or two other editors over WP:CFB standardization and WP:CFB guidelines. It's a mistake to view everything that WP:CFB and those editors do through that lens, CP, especially when the University of Washington does not even claim these "championships," as you readily acknowledge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say my concerns here are colored mostly by the issues that have reared their heads (well at least in its priomordial version) at the College football national championship article. Because of the tangential nature of these discussions, I have also clarified my opinions on why these templates should be deleted in separate, more concise comments (and this AfD perhaps isn't the place to continue this particular part of the discussion). That said, I don't believe GNG applies here: 1990 and 1984 Washington Huskey football articles do exist and are deemed to be notable topics. Only former precedent, seemingly based on consensus but not policy or guideline or essay, has excluded non-championship season navboxes. Thus GNG does not apply to that precedent, but WP:Consensus does. Regarding WP:NAV, no single "National Champion" or "World Champion" or "Superbowl Champion" navbox has an identically titled stand-alone article. Instead, the corresponding stand-alone article is "YYYY Team Nickname sport team". That is the case in this discussion as well, so CNG does not apply, because if a stand-alone article doesn't have to be identically titled for one champion, it doesn't need to be identically titled for any other. If you can't point to an corresponding identically titled stand-alone article for any other championship navbox, then you are left to argue that Washington's 1990 and 1984 are non-championship season, which has more to do with WP:UNDUE as a matter of inclusion or exclusion of verifiable information, as stated above and per your reasoning, but not GNG, which has to do solely with the existence and notability of articles (see WP:NNC). Again, the reason I'm am nitpicking on the reasoning here is because of its importance to the contents of the Championship article.
And I still disagree with your definition of "consensus", as does the NCAA Records Book and as does the dictionary. You'd have to supply sources to confirm your supposition that "consensus" status is only dependent on an AP or Coaches' poll selection, which I'm somewhat certain does not exist because I've explored that topic previously: the only verifiable definition of the term comes from the NCAA Records Book (which is also true for the case of Consensus All-Americans). CrazyPaco (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, a "consensus national championship," as that term is commonly understood and used by the mainstream sports media, includes those that are awarded by the final AP Poll and the final Coaches Poll -- not one or the other, but both major media polls. When the two major media polls have awarded their championships to different teams in the same year, that has been commonly referred to as a "split championship" in the mainstream sports media. The minor selector organizations are usually pile-ons.
I also repeat my assertion that the NCAA Record Book's idiosyncratic definitions of "consensus championship" and "major selector" (a) have no official standing because the NCAA does not officially recognize Division I FBS champions in college football, which the NCAA widely acknowledges, and (b) are not widely acknowledged, accepted or used by the mainstream sports media. That having been said, we are arguing hypotheticals in this particular case, and have create a large enough wall of text to discourage anyone else from participating. Let's move the remaining argument, which is not relevant to this TfD, to another forum. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we can move this somewhere else, although I think it has largely run its course. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [repeated in 1990 template discussion] It is true that general practice is that only major league/NCAA championship teams have season navboxes per Jweiss11. However, per UW Dawgs, there is absolutely no existing WP:Consensus at the CFB Wikiproject, or anywhere else, about what constitutes a "minor [National Championship] honor". There is no one single governing body, including the NCAA, that awards or certifies official or non-official, major or minor National Championships in college football. Because of this reality, the ultimate deciders on what national championship selections are "minor" or not "minor" is actually the individual school itself per its own official records. (i.e. does it choose to accept the award?; it should be noted that in all cases there is no instance of a school claiming a National Championship that was not awarded by at least one third party, or in other words, there are no "invented" championships nor those awarded to the school by itself). While it may be true that the championship selections not defined by the NCAA as "consensus"* in the dual-poll era (1950 and later) are often less popularly recognized due to the media focusing almost exclusively on the AP or Coaches' poll (in fact ignoring half of the NCAA's designated "consensus" selectors), these same selections are not neglected in the NCAA Official Records Book, nor in some cases, by the universities themselves. For instance, Kentucky claims a "non-consensus" championship in 1950; Georgia Tech claims 1952; Illinois claims 1952; Ole Miss claims 1959 and 1962; SMU claims 1981 and 1982; Michigan State claims 1951, 1955, 1957; and the University of Tennessee claims selections 1950, 1956, 1967.[2] All of these selections could warrant navboxes as is being discussed here, and preventing the existence of such navboxes could be an exclusion based on violations of the Wikipedia policies of WP:POV and WP:OR.
With that said, in the case of these two navboxes for the University of Washington, it is unclear that the university actually claims these national championships and this is so documented in the article College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS and thus they are not listed in the claimed table in that article. Therefore, I would have a slight lean towards delete of these navboxes until a more definitive and documented claim, as has been done by the schools listed above, has been published by the University of Washington for these seasons. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*It should be noted that "consensus" in this instance, as defined by the NCAA Official Records Book, means being named a national champion by only one of four different selectors (AP Poll, Coaches' Poll, Football Writers Association of America, and the National Football Foundation), not the commonly understood definition of the word "consensus".
  1. As noted above, there is no current consensus or agreement within CFB editors about which championship selectors (how national championship are awarded) are significant or appropriate over the last 140 years.
  2. However, the NCAA (as the governing body of the sport) has explicitly vetted, recognized, and maintained a specific list of selectors (deemed "Major Selectors") which are documented in the NCAA's official record book, pg 69. These recognized selectors typically have decades of established work, as is the case here.
  3. The NCAA official record book does not differentiate or tier these Major Selectors/their annual awards (significant or minor, senior or junior, real or lessor, etc).
  4. The NCAA official record book explicitly notes this particular national championship award.
  5. Washington's official football media guide explicitly notes this particular championship award.
  6. Annual college football national championship navboxes are in broad use, as is the custom for each of the major U.S. men's team sports. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (in the spirit of WP:Not a vote, I clarify my opinions here lest they get lost in my voluminous comments above that have gone off on a tangent) The University of Washington does not make a concrete, definitive claim on either the 1984 or 1990 Championships. Washington's Football media guide simply lists championships from any and all selectors which is in contrast to the way this is handled by most other schools in addition to being in contrast to Washington's own championship claims on their official athletics website and the signage displayed within their home stadium (only 1960 and 1991 are displayed, see below the score board in full sized view of this photo). Such a differential between listing the selections and claims of national championships was previously discussed on the talk page of the College football national championships article and is reflected in the infobox of Washington Huskies football. As a general comment, the probable reason that 1960 and 1991 are not claimed is likely because their dates are well after the establishment of the dual-poll/Consensus era and they are not popularly viewed as national champions in those seasons. Therefore, based on this lack of general recognition in addition to fact that the University of Washington itself does not concretely celebrate or recognize the legitimacy of these selections, including them on Wikipedia could involve unverifiable original research which at minimum violates undue weight being given to minority views. If such is true, and if season-specific navboxes are to be restricted to championship seasons across the landscape of sports topics, then allowing 1984 and 1990 championships navboxes to exist would also exert defacto UNDUE weight to this minority view. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments: Resolute's objections, while broad and slightly misstated (championship years are indeed not "random") are interesting. Perhaps, there's no reason to have any championship team navbox of any sort at all on Wikipedia. Is the connection between teammates and co-coaches on a championship team so important as to necessitate a navbox? Again this is an interesting idea, but I suggest we table it for a broader discussion. For what it's worth, the idea of deleting all championship navboxes (including undisputed consensus college football titles, Super Bowls, World Series, etc) is sure raise all hell.
But, anyway, the issue here in this TfD and the one below is the question of deleting two navboxes that represent college football national championships of materially lesser note and recognition than than the others found at Category:NCAA Division I FBS champions navigational boxes aside from Template:1960 Washington Huskies football navbox, which should probably be nominated in the same breath here as well. That these three navboxes exist on Wikipedia is the simple product of one editor who focused on Washington Huskies football going a little too free and easy with the navbox creation in 2010.
Per UW Dawgs comments above, the NCAA official record book does enumerate that large list of "major" selectors on pages 69 and 70 and does note the titles for Washington in 1984 and 1990 on page 74. But then the record book continues on page 75 with a section on apparently more select major selectors since 1936: AP, NFF, UP, FWAA, and USA Today. Then the "Consensus National Champions Since 1950" section on page 78 recognizes these same selectors. This suggests that the NCAA record book indeed differentiates or tiers national championships, contrary to UW Dawgs's point above. This apparent tiering is reflected in the bolding found at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Yearly national championship selections from major selectors. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1990 Washington football

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1990 Washington football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

General practice is to have navboxes for specific yearly college sports teams only in the event that they won a major national championship. The 1990 Washington Huskies football team was recognized as national champ by Rothman (FACT), which is something of a minor honor per College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Huskies' 1990 "championship" was not a consensus national championship; it was a minor computer ranking championship. This is not a recognized national championship in major sports media, does not satisfy the usual standards of WikiProject College Football, and fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a consensus national champion that year. Colorado and GT were.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The governing NCAA recognizes the Rothman (FACT) poll selector as what it terms a "Major Selector," a designation identical to USA Today, UPI, Football Writers, and others. See 2012 NCAA FOOTBALL RECORDS, pg. 69. While both Jweiss11 and Dirtlawyer1 are both long-standing and well-regarded CFB editors, the use of the term "minor" here is unfortunate relative to the NCAA's view and chosen terminology/designation. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [repeated from 1984 template discussion] It is true that general practice is that only major league/NCAA championship teams have season navboxes per Jweiss11. However, per UW Dawgs, there is absolutely no existing WP:Consensus at the CFB Wikiproject, or anywhere else, about what constitutes a "minor [National Championship] honor". There is no one single governing body, including the NCAA, that awards or certifies official or non-official, major or minor National Championships in college football. Because of this reality, the ultimate deciders on what national championship selections are "minor" or not "minor" is actually the individual school itself per its own official records. (i.e. does it choose to accept the award?; it should be noted that there is no instance of a school claiming a National Championship that was not awarded by at least one third party, or in other words, there are no "invented" championships nor those awarded to the school by itself). While it may be true that the championship selections not defined by the NCAA as "consensus"* in the dual-poll era (1950 and later) are often less popularly recognized due to the media focusing almost exclusively on the AP or Coaches' poll (in fact ignoring half of the NCAA's designated "consensus" selectors), these same selections are not neglected in the NCAA Official Records Book, nor in some cases, by the universities themselves. For instance, Kentucky claims a "non-consensus" championship in 1950; Georgia Tech claims 1952; Illinois claims 1952; Ole Miss claims 1959 and 1962; SMU claims 1981 and 1982; Michigan State claims 1951, 1955, 1957; and the University of Tennessee claims selections 1950, 1956, 1967.[3] All of these selections could warrant navboxes as is being discussed here, and preventing the existence of such navboxes could be an exclusion based on violations of the Wikipedia policies of WP:POV and WP:OR.
With that said, in the case of these two navboxes for the University of Washington, it is unclear that the university actually claims these national championships and this is so documented in the article College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS and thus they are not listed in the claimed table in that article. Therefore, I would have a slight lean towards delete of these navboxes until a more definitive and documented claim, as has been done by the schools listed above, has been published by the University of Washington for these seasons. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*It should be noted that "consensus" in this instance, as defined by the NCAA Official Records Book, means being named a national champion by only one of four different selectors (AP Poll, Coaches' Poll, Football Writers Association of America, and the National Football Foundation), not the commonly understood definition of the word "consensus".
  1. As noted above, there is no current consensus or agreement within CFB editors about which championship selectors (how national championship are awarded) are significant or appropriate over the last 140 years.
  2. However, the NCAA (as the governing body of the sport) has explicitly vetted, recognized, and maintained a specific list of selectors (deemed "Major Selectors") which are documented in the NCAA's official record book, pg 69. These recognized selectors typically have decades of established work, as is the case here.
  3. The NCAA official record book does not differentiate or tier these Major Selectors/their annual awards (significant or minor, senior or junior, real or lessor, etc).
  4. The NCAA official record book explicitly notes this particular national championship award.
  5. Washington's official football media guide explicitly notes this particular championship award.
  6. Annual college football national championship navboxes are in broad use, as is the custom for each of the major U.S. men's team sports. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (in the spirit of WP:Not a vote, I clarify my opinions here lest they get lost in my voluminous comments above that have gone off on a tangent) The University of Washington does not make a concrete, definitive claim on either the 1984 or 1990 Championships. Washington's Football media guide simply lists championships from any and all selectors which is in contrast to the way this is handled by most other schools in addition to being in contrast to Washington's own championship claims on their official athletics website and the signage displayed within their home stadium (only 1960 and 1991 are displayed, see below the score board in full sized view of this photo). Such a differential between listing the selections and claims of national championships was previously discussed on the talk page of the College football national championships article and is reflected in the infobox of Washington Huskies football. As a general comment, the probable reason that 1960 and 1991 are not claimed is likely because their dates are well after the establishment of the dual-poll/Consensus era and they are not popularly viewed as national champions in those seasons. Therefore, based on this lack of general recognition in addition to fact that the University of Washington itself does not concretely celebrate or recognize the legitimacy of these selections, including them on Wikipedia could involve unverifiable original research which at minimum violates undue weight being given to minority views. If such is true, and if season-specific navboxes are to be restricted to championship seasons across the landscape of sports topics, then allowing 1984 and 1990 championships navboxes to exist would also exert defacto UNDUE weight to this minority view. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not a consensus national champion. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_27&oldid=1138535334"